Re: Iron March Forum

by ForTheFuture Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:17 pm

Fuck it.
How would people feel about a new thread with a mutual code of conduct?

by GF Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:18 pm

kikehunt wrote:than you have no place in this thread and you can stop telling everyone else what they are to do

Me? Telling everyone else what they are to do? "How about some evidence. Asserting the opposite does not count; quote a post please."

by GF Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:18 pm

ForTheFuture wrote:Fuck it.
How would people feel about a new thread with a mutual code of conduct?

Anything would be better than this thread at this point.

by kikehunt Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:23 pm

ForTheFuture wrote:Fuck it.
How would people feel about a new thread with a mutual code of conduct?

I fully agree.

Separate Ben and Celt's comments from this thread and put it in a new one.
In this thread any insults from either side will be deleted immediately.
Fair?

GF wrote:Me? Telling everyone else what they are to do? "How about some evidence. Asserting the opposite does not count; quote a post please.

quote; why is guest777 not banned?
quote; I was giving you a chance to perhaps.... etc
quote; If you're legitimately interested in debate, you should react to what comments you perceive as being immature with maturity,

Anything would be better than this thread at this point.

later gator, presuming you will actually leave this time

by **Celtiberian** Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:39 pm

Guest777 wrote: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'm not pursuing a "detour tactic," I simply refuse to allow the atrocious nonsense you write to go unanswered. I cannot be faulted for your decision to include contentious content in your posts—if you consider it to be tangential to your argument, I recommend you cease including it.

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

I'll be generous and offer you a bit of constructive criticism. You have a tendency to write rather verbose replies, hence most of the sections you write are not worth responding to. I quote the sentences which I feel deserve a response, whilst ignoring the rest of your vague, redundant twaddle. I also generally ignore the content which is either silly, anecdotal, or which has already been sufficiently addressed by other members. You would do well to attempt to be more lucid and direct from henceforth.

If you can’t bring it back to the argument it serves no purpose.

It always comes back to the argument.

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.

Response time is of no concern to me. If you're troubled by it, follow the advice I gave above.

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.

Which is precisely when Marxist perspectives on the national question should be expected. (Why would anyone concern themselves with analyzing nationalism in locations where people are generally content with their national arrangements?)

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.

"Integral" in what sense? Conflict and division are to be expected amongst peoples whose national sentiments are not congruent with the state they are legally bound to.

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.

They are incomparable. Maclean envisaged a self-determined Scottish republic organized on the communist principles of mutual aid and collective governance. This is the exact converse of the cosmopolitan project of progressively dismantling territorial nations until a global consciousness, accompanied by the abolition of national boundaries, is attained.

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.

Regionalism represents the point of origin for many nations, and since modern nation-states are the product of a coerced fusion of various tribes and/or kingdoms, the ones which retained their former cultural identities to an appreciable extent are frequently those which continue to struggle on behalf of national self-determination (Scots, Basques, Catalans, Austrians, etc.).

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.

Setting aside my utter disinterest in the objectives of petit-bourgeois bureaucrats like Alex Salmond, it's patently absurd for you to suggest that John Maclean was involved in a plot devised by international financiers to undermine Great Britain—which is a conspiracy theory Hitlerians commonly use when attempting to defame communists. As for the First World War, it was a travesty in which millions of working people were used as cannon fodder to advance the interests of monarchism and national capital.

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.

You've not demonstrated why Scottish or Irish nationalism fails to qualify as "real" nationalism.

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’.

Revolutionaries obviously fight against the status quo because it conflicts with their notion of justice. National revolutions will only cease when every people are allowed the right to self-determination, and when imperialistic modes of production (e.g., capitalism) have been superseded by communism.

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.

Contrary to fascists, we don't spend an inordinate amount of time on such issues because we understand that they can't even be addressed until capitalism has been abolished, thereby rendering them conjoined with the social question. Moreover, being that we're not racists and instead adhere to a democratic form of nationalism, it is not up to us to dictate to the working class how these demographic changes should be interpreted. Personally, I am opposed to ideas such a forced repatriation and instead support alternatives such as national personal autonomy, confederation, assimilation, secession, and voluntary/assisted repatriation.

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.

As if that should trouble us. The reaction a handful of cosmopolitan socialists have is of no consequence; they have maintained hegemony over the Left on this issue for over 50 years and have consistently failed to make any progress among the proletariat whatsoever. Only the response of the working class matters to us.

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.

Accusations of racism are imbecilic because we don't espouse racial nationalism. And despite what they (and you) think, nationalism is not inherently racist because nations needn't be racially or ethnically exclusive.

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.

Provide examples of our alleged "backtracking." I have been unambiguous and persistent in my criticism of those who seek to reduce national identity to a mere epiphenomenon of capital, and have consistently argued that Marx and Engels didn't sufficiently address the national question—though one could hardly fault them, considering how time consuming the development of their critique of political economy must have been.

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.

Incorrect. It's not a form of avoidance to quote figures who share(d) views in common with Marxian left-wing nationalism. The reason people choose to quote historical figures in general is because they wish to give credit to the individuals responsible for having influenced their opinion on a particular topic; our use is no different. Of course, it astonishes cosmopolitan socialists and fascists alike to learn that we haven't concocted left-wing nationalism ex nihilo, that it's a current which once possessed widespread support among communists and socialists, and that can surely be a motivating factor as well—especially when one is accusing us espousing views antithetical to communism.

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.

I'm "justifying" nothing. I provided you with the Marxist definitions of the nation you requested. Moreover, "pride" and "security" are hardly attributes that define nationality, for one can take pride in, say, the accomplishments of a athletic club, or feel secure by seeing a police car patrol their neighborhood).

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.

Nonsense. Marxist theoreticians like James Connolly and Otto Bauer explicitly separated national identity from state formalities, as did Marx and Engels.

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.

The "blood and soil" doctrine is mystical drivel, and whatever identification people feel for their racial or ethnic group is extraneous to their national identity. I share my race in common with Germans, Italians, and Portuguese, but I don't share a national identity with them; ethically, I am indistinguishable from an Asturian, but, from a national perspective, they would regard me as they do any other American. Simply put, your conception of "nationalism" is guilty of amalgamating disparate psychological phenomena.

Greater than the Marxist scripture is the revolutionary idea behind it, the metaphysics of a revolutionary idea; what is acceptable today is not tomorrow.

The Marxist tradition I follow on the national question is quite clear in stating that national self-identification is an enduring trait, influenced by, but not reducible to, material conditions.

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.

It is a fight only a fascist should handle, because only fascists are of the opinion that they should unilaterally determine what a nation's immigration policy should be. Left-wing nationalists, by contrast, submit to the people's demands on the issue—the opposite of the Hitlerian practice of having the party "not serve the masses but rather dominate them."

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).

Those Marxists who have defended the legitimacy of national identity have traditionally done so by regarding it as an element of our Gattungswesen, much as Bakunin did when he wrote of it as a "historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance."

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.

By whom? What are you defining as 'cultural fascism'?

The genocide of one group over another is very intimately tied to this dogooding principle

The genocide of the native American populations in the Caribbean, North, South and Central America committed by the Spaniards, French, Portuguese, and British was "very intimately tied" to the "dogooding principle"? The genocide of European Jewry by the Nazis was as well? Of course not. You're intentionally restricting the focus of your argument to the few European colonial states which yielded to international opinion and ceased subjugating indigenous populations, thereafter falling victim to retaliatory violence from said populations.

When the French revolution reached Haiti the slaves were declared free - Great they thought! and killed everyone.

The Haitian slaves fought for their independence, it wasn't granted to them by the revolutionary French government. And killing the landowner and slave driver responsible for oppressing you and your loved ones isn't exactly what I'd consider unjustifiable violence.

Rhodesia was a psuedo-nation and Zimbabwe is? As you say its foundation is fundamentally no different from that of the United States.

Indeed. The only meaningful difference is that the United States succeeded in their unjust project, whereas Rhodesia failed.

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.

It may represent such a lesson to genocidal imperialists like yourself, but certainly not to Europeans collectively. The working class has no interest in sacrificing their children's lives to these obscene imperial pursuits, and never has.

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.

Sure, Europeans have an extensive history of profound acts of "mercy" to the peoples of the world. The African slave trade, crusades, and the history of colonialism and neocolonialism demonstrates this quite clearly, right? But, for the sake of argument, let's postulate that transnational empathy actually was a trait exclusive to Europeans. Would that then mean that Europeans should abandon it and instead treat foreign populations as animals fit only for servitude and/or death? Absolutely not. To do so would be to descend into barbarism ourselves. The sensible approach would be to continue to live by our principles, while understanding that any assistance offered to non-European people may not be reciprocated. You don't permit foreign peoples to abuse you, but neither do you abuse them.

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.

As did the Vietnamese, Cubans, Chinese, etc. Struggles for national liberation are violent affairs, no one denies this. Only within a post-capitalist framework will the conditions exist to solve these matters peacefully.

do you support that these people should disappear from Europe?

In case it wasn't clear, I don't support the extermination of any people.

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.

You're judging the sincerity of Marxism on the basis of a ludicrous straw man argument you've fabricated.

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?

It has been the stance of certain Marxist theoreticians (e.g., James Connolly) that a unified Irish Republic be constructed which respects the rights of Irish citizens to worship (or not worship) as they see fit. This position wasn't unanimously agreed upon by Marxists, however, since there were also individuals like William Walker, who were in favor of Northern Irish subservience to Great Britain.

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

Being that I reject what you believe qualifies as a "Marxist social agenda," this is meaningless to me.

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.

In other words, your "consistent current" is merely an explicitly racial form of reactionary nationalism. (In this context, by "reactionary" I'm referring to the pre-Enlightenment, traditionalist variety thereof.) Because that's all I've gathered from your critiques of left-wing nationalism and the reactionary nationalism espoused by organizations like the BNP thus far. If my assessment is correct, there isn't any reason to believe that your neo-fascism will be any less vulnerable to sectarianism than your predecessors were. Differences of opinion on issues such as economics, governance, religion, etc. will continue to divide you.

find me something of him grovelling to big business.

I already provided you with one example. There are also many instances of him betraying the very ideology he professed to follow in order to accommodate bourgeois interests while in office. Take agrarian reform and the nationalization of trusts:

"Point 17 of the Nazi program had called for redistribution of land to increase the number of small peasant homesteads. In actuality, however, there were only half as many new peasant settlements under the Nazis as there has been in the Wiemar Republic. Most of these new homesteads were created out of land already in government hands, not out of the oversized Junker estates. The better competitive position of the Junker estates was left unimpaired. The Junkers continued to be the greatest beneficiaries of government subsidies. Although the government supported meat, dairy, and grain prices (some price supports had already been introduced under Brüning), small farmers were no better off under the Nazis than they had been before.

"Industrialists worked closely with the regime and exercised considerable influence over economic policy. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen un Halbach (1870-1950) retained his leadership position in the Association of German Industry and headed the Adolf-Hitler-Spende, a special industrial fund for the Nazi Party. Most industrialists supported rearmament and expansion, which offered the prospect of increased demand for their products as well as readier access to raw materials. The authority and interests of proprietors and managers were enhanced by the introduction of the leadership principle in all businesses by law in 1934. Employers assumed the title of Betriebsführer (enterprise leaders) and became masters in their own house to an even greater extent than had already been the case in the Wiemar Republic. Under the leadership principle executives were responsible only to their superiors, not to anyone below them in the hierarchy. All authority ultimately rested with the man at the top.

Freed from the pressure of union demands and encouraged by the regime to form monopolistic cartels in order to eliminate market instability, industrialists saw their profits rise at an even higher rate than they had been in 1928. Industrial profits greatly outpaced wage and salary increases and the rise in the general standard of living. Whereas wages and salaries increased by 49 per cent between 1933 and 1937 (and farm income by 33 per cent), profits in trade and industry rose by 88 per cent."
Stacke Roderick, Hitler's Germany: Origins, Interpretations, Legacies (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 127, 122.

Again this is difficult because there are like 50 Marxist/liberal versions of Hitler’s rise to power

The historical record is pretty straightforward: The Nazis emerged independently, promoting an antisemitic and racialist form of reactionary nationalism that was critical of finance capital but supportive of industrial capital. When Hitler joined, he retained the aforementioned characteristics of the party while incorporating a few of his own doctrines, e.g., an expansionist lebensraum policy and the Führerprinzip. As the party gained in popularity (as it notably did among the recently pauperized petite bourgeoisie, due to their populist economic program), the bourgeoisie realized that they would need to protect their interests by providing financial assistance to Hitler in exchange for assurance that he would not violate property rights upon assuming power. Virtually none of the 25 Point Programme was enacted, thereby revealing it to have been nothing more than a Machiavellian tool which Hitler had utilized to in order to amass enough electoral support to become Chancellor.

Having read Hitler's Table Talk, it's evident to me that Hitler only opposed joint-stock companies, while holding a favorable opinion of traditional capitalist enterprises. Whether he would have eventually banned the former is debatable. He was also content with a regulated and 'Aryanized' financial system, and expressed no interest in nationalizing that sector. (As a matter of fact, the Nazis had privatized many of the banks and utilities which the Wiemar regime had nationalized.) As for the land question, instead of redistributing large estates as the 25 Point Programme demanded, he intended on granting parcels of land to German peasant families abroad, once the war was over and the Reich had the opportunity to embark on the aforementioned imperialistic lebensraum policy.

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've actually read some of Gottfried Feder's work. He definitely didn't have a theory of 'wage slavery,' he was instead obsessed with what he called "interest slavery." Surprisingly, Alfred Rosenberg summarized the subject well when he called interest slavery "a mere symptom of the totality of events." Feder's solution to the problem (which was never enacted) was basically to nationalize credit. Despite what you think, I happen to believe that he was sincere in his convictions, but I also believe that his populist anti-finance rhetoric was used by the party for opportunistic purposes—which is why he fell into disrepute with the NSDAP after Hitler came to power.

As a communist, I obviously agree with the allegations of 'usury' reactionaries like Feder, C. H. Douglas, and José Antonio Primo de Rivera leveled against finance capital, but their problem was that they all ignored the central injustice of capitalism, namely, exploitation. Socialists have been demanding the nationalization of finance for well over a century (it's plank #5 of the Communist Manifesto, for example), but in conjunction with the collectivization of the means of production. However, like most early fascists, Feder made a distinction between raffende Kapital (exploitative capital) and schaffende Kapital (productive capital), the former of which he associated with "parasitical Jews" and the latter which he celebrated as an indispensable Aryan achievement.

Are you sincerely saying that these people had no values?

Of course they did. Cult members have "values" as well, ones which they're occasionally willing to commit suicide for.

Perhaps you don't know what it is like to be a fanatic which would explain alot about the current position of left nationalism.

Fanaticism isn't a trait I possess or consider useful. It frequently inhibits reason, and is generally more destructive than constructive.

it goes to further show that leftist ethics that inspire marxism and marxists are not incompatable with hyper capitalism.

As I explained to kikehunt, Marxism is an amoral framework for analyzing capital's laws of motion. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels's most significant contribution to communism was the theory of 'scientific socialism,' the thesis of which attenuates the role of ethics in the formation of revolutionary consciousness. That isn't to say they were moral nihilists, but the ethical principles that influenced them were quite distinct from those espoused by much of the non-Marxist Left.

you may question peter singer's credentials but he echos what most marxists advocate and

"Most Marxists" support alleviating Third World poverty by sending donations to NGOs? On the contrary, they (like me) regard it as an exercise in futility. Marxists hold no illusions about the source of poverty in the world today. Simply put, until global capitalism is abolished, the slumification of the world shall persist.

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.

The "world of modern liberalism" is not, by any stretch of the imagination, in conformity with my ethical precepts.

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.

Utilitarians like Singer are perfectly willing to make inegalitarian decisions if they're required to facilitate the 'greatest good for the greatest number'—he rejects socialism precisely because he thinks it's too egalitarian to deliver an optimum level of utility. Since it's a form of consequentialism, utilitarians measures the ethical status of behavior through that parameter alone. Thus, you cannot accuse Singer of failing to concern himself with the negative repercussions that may result from the policies he promotes. In short, you're confusing utilitarianism with deontological ethics.

Muh dawkinsforum fallacy.

I detest Richard Dawkins—among other things, I take issue with his militant atheism and genetic reductionism—so it's amusing you would suggest that my familiarity with formal logic derives from frequenting his little internet forum.

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.

It's incredibly ironic for a man who actively promotes the 'eradication' of populations deemed enemies of Europe to accuse me of espousing "evil" principles. Humanity has already witnessed the fruits of your ideology: genocide, warfare, and autocracy. The communist tradition which I identify with, on the other hand, is responsible for empowering and liberating working people throughout history (e.g., the Paris Commune, Kronstadt Commune, Shanghai Commune of 1927, syndicalist Spain, the Ukrainian Free Territory, and the cooperative movement). Aspects of state socialism obviously caused a great deal of suffering historically, but I am not an exponent of Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Castroism, Hoxhaism, or any other political tendency associated with that mode of production.

I believe that altruism is only supposed to be applied within our own group, and outside it is destructive.

You're arbitrarily limiting it to your own group, when the potential exists to expand it much further. We obviously must set priorities—your example of animal charities being given funds while human beings are starving illustrates this well—but there is absolutely no reason to look onto foreign or animal suffering with indifference.

They are no less applicable to the laws to genetics

The laws of heredity are still being explored and human behavior genetics remains in its infancy. What we do know is that there is a considerable amount of plasticity in human behavior, thereby demonstrating that it is not rigidly determined by our genetic endowment.

But as I demonstrated these were all members of the communist party, and that was their primary activity.

It was their occupation. You've not provided any evidence proving that the bourgeoisie knowingly placed them there in order to undermine our cultural integrity. In fact, if you actually watch the films those directors and writers produced, you'll find that the cultural values they were promoting were as innocuous as those featured in most films of that era.

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

Hundreds, if not thousands, of nationalistic films have been produced in the United States.

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.

Can you name a single self-identified 'communist' director or screenwriter active in Hollywood today? (And I'm not referring to obscure, independent filmmakers.) The vast majority of them are members of the Democratic Party.

It is not a strawman it is the logical outcome of your ideas.

It's a straw man because you're attributing to us things which we do not support.

for a communist buying a moccachino is part of his moral duty

You're mistaken. Only petit-bourgeois and middle class liberals are delusional enough to think that something as trivial as purchasing coffee from Starbucks, driving a Prius, or shopping at Whole Foods qualifies as an ethical act. Communists understand the system well enough to realize such frivolities will not contribute to significantly changing anything.

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.

The fact of the matter is that the world cannot be made more equitable within the framework of capitalism, so the means are crucial. I'm obviously not opposed to charitable organizations which feed starving children, but neither am I naïve enough to view charity as a solution to global poverty. By advancing the cause of socialism in my own country, I am directly benefiting my working class compatriots while simultaneously assisting countries in the global south by eliminating the largest obstacle to their economic development (i.e., the neoliberal "Washington consensus").

I am totaly unconvinced by your assertion that economic aid is fixing the worlds problems

When did I suggest anything of the sort? I wrote that "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."

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.

They are a major obstacle to achieving a manageable rate of reproduction in the global south, yes.

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.

First of all, anyone who can witness starvation and disregard it due to the nationality of the individual suffering is either a sociopath or is deceiving themselves into believing the starving person is less than human. Secondly, I've explained what the obstacles to economic development in the Third World are several times now.

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.

And just what are the "higher instincts" you're claiming segments of humanity are incapable of attaining?

It is the reason the literacy rate in chicago is inbetween most african countries.

Chicago's literacy rate is attributable to the economic hardships many families in the city face and the culture of poverty currently hindering the progress of black Americans. If you're seriously suggesting that there's significant racial variation in the propensity to read and write, you clearly don't understand the first thing about the subject. Cuba's literacy rate, for example, is 99.83%, and the country's demographics are analogous to those of Chicago.

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

Exactly what are the behaviors you consider to be "unnatural and anti-social"?

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.

The reason I chose to explain evolutionary pluralism to you was to emphasize the fact that competition is not as vital to the origin of species as social Darwinists contend, and to demonstrate why it's erroneous to apply the logic of natural selection to human affairs.

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.

Caucasian birthrates are only relevant to those who choose to view the world through the illusory perspective of racial competition, and "degeneration" is a subjective concept.

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.

I implied that patriarchal families, contemporary social mores, race as it's commonly understood, and the current territorial demarcation of nations are social constructs, not that concepts themselves are artificial. If you believe otherwise, you must not be well versed in history or anthropology. (Communal child rearing is common in hunter-gatherer tribes, social mores are culturally determined, population genetics divides groups in a manner unlike traditional racial typology, and national identifications and territories have changed considerably throughout history.)

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.

Nowhere did I claim to be opposed to procreation, marriage, or loyalty.

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.

You do realize how childish this sounds, don't you?

no Marxist would collaborate with the system
those who collaborate with the system are not Marxists

A self-identified Marxist may indeed choose to collaborate with the system, but the point is that he or she would not be advancing communism in so doing. A Marxist, i.e., one who adheres to Marx's method of analyzing capital's laws of motion, can even be a capitalist (e.g., Friedrich Engels), but their position qua capitalist is no less exploitative of labor.

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.

I specifically asked what is the "last radically subversive (in an anti-capitalist sense), big budget motion picture that was released?" Occasionally depicting authority figures as abusive, apart from being realistic, does not undermine the system, nor does glamorizing drug addicts or criminals.

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.

You honestly believe that a small group of academicians brainwashing a generation of policy makers is a more plausible explanation for the cultural adjustments experienced in the 20th century than the profit motive is? If you were to dispassionately analyze the few successful social movements that have occurred in recent decades, you'd notice a consistent theme: they benefit capital in some capacity, or at least don't interfere with it. The women's liberation movement, for instance, provided employers with a vast supply of domestic labor which increased competition in the labor market, thereby enabling them to pay lower wages; mass immigration served the same purpose. If these movements obstructed the process of capital accumulation, do you really think they would have been permitted?

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.

The advertising industry was in its infancy in the '50s and '60s, as was the suburbanization process which further atomized society. Today, advertising is a sophisticated multi-billion dollar industry that uses the latest findings in psychological research to inculcate the masses with an ethos of possessive individualism. Have you ever wondered why children have become hypersexualized in the last 10-15 years, or why conspicuous consumption confers onto teenagers the social status they so crave? I'll give you a hint: it's not because sinister Freudo-Marxists succeeded in undermining our cultural integrity. Observe:

Were they equipped with the same means by which to manufacture consumerism in the '50s-'60s, there's no denying that advertisers would have utilized them to the same extent as the industry does today.

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.

Hipsters are trendy, middle class young people who are either apolitical, 'progressives,' or attracted to the latest propertarian tendencies (e.g., anarcho-capitalism). I've never encountered a single one who considered him or herself to be a Marxist-Leninist, and the majority of anarchists I've met have been punk rockers or grungy, squatter-types.

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'd have to think that, otherwise your thesis falls apart. Unfortunately for you, however, the fact is that the literary and cultural critics you castigate overwhelmingly reject the methods Marxist analysis employs and do not consider communism a desirable mode of production.

What collage are you studying at?

It would be imprudent to disclose such information online.

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.

Not once have I come across Soviet merchandise at a department store. Even hippie boutiques are averse to selling such stuff, unless it's depicted in parody form, such as:

Iron March Forum - Page 12 6scpzr

(as if we purchase such things, which we don’t)

If fascists didn't purchase those products, there wouldn't be hundreds of websites catering to that particular niche market.

Again you have Che action movie

Steven Soderbergh's Che Guevara film literally cost more money to produce than it generated in the box office, and Walter Salles's The Motorcycle Diaries was basically confined to film festivals. Communism is not a profitable enterprise.

Why isn’t the life of somebody like Rockwell or Goebbels celebrated?

Probably because antisemitism is no longer socially acceptable in Western nations (and for good reason).

Fascism is what the system fears more than anything, because they know it really will be their necks on the line.

Fascism is what the system resorts to when the threat of proletarian revolution is especially acute and parliamentary democracy can no longer sufficiently maintain the institution of private property.

Marxism has been completely absorbed by the system.

Being that Marxism is an economic and sociological method of analysis that is systematically marginalized in academia, you couldn't be more wrong.

I wasn’t aware anyone was actually being punished for being s subversive today

Peaceful protestors are regularly beaten and arrested by police officers, 'socialist' and 'communist' are terms of derision used to end political careers, and COINTELPRO tactics are still employed to destroy radical organizations.

The opposite today is true – the system has rewarded literally thousands of people for their subversive views

Today the preferred method is marginalization. Their logic is, 'why use methods the public might object to when you can simply deny your enemy a platform or ridicule their beliefs'?

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?

Familiarize yourself with the fate of Van Jones.

you are in an institution of higher learning and you seriously believe this?

Yes, because it's true.

Again your definition of Marxist is fallacious and limited – you mean self identified Marxist Leninists

I mean people who literally follow Marx's socioanalysis of capitalism, which is by no means limited to Marxist-Leninists. It's "fallacious" to assign the label "Marxist" to anyone who fails to employ Marx's method.

those are kooks, though you will find one in every institution.

Not in any of the institutions I (or anyone I know) have attended, and certainly not in any department of economics (again, the University of Massachusetts, Amherst notwithstanding).

by **Celtiberian** Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:35 am

kikehunt wrote: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.

My response to Guest777 on this issue can be extended to our debate as well.

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.

This is ironic, coming from a person whose posts are replete with personal insults.

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

The only posts I've deleted have been those which contain no serious content, and I will continue to do so. We in the moderator staff are seriously considering the idea of only permitting Guest777 to continue posting on this thread. If order and civility are not achieved, the entire thread may be closed.

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.

"Normal people" don't value the freedom of speech? Where did you get that idea? Even assuming that were true (though it isn't), it would merely be an argumentum ad populum, which in no way discredits the intrinsic value of free speech.

do go on about that one

There's no need to. It's abundantly clear that Iron March has failed in its attempt to critique Marxism, left-wing nationalism, and the Socialist Phalanx—and I'm quite confident that impartial viewers of the thread would agree with that assessment.

Hahaha. Then why did you ignore my post on military strategy?

As I told you in my previous response, I am disinterested in the specific details concerning Soviet military tactics during the Second World War. Consequently, it's not a subject I'm well versed in, so I'm not in a position to debate the subject.

If there was such a great system of production why were their soldiers that recall going into battle without weapons?

Unlike Germany, the Soviet Union was ill prepared for the war. Stalin was naïve enough to believe that Hitler would honor the Molotov–Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, so he hadn't invested enough resources into the production of armaments. Germany had also been an industrialized nation for decades prior to the war, whereas the Soviet industrial sector was still in the process of being developed.

The german workers seemed to like it

The German working class had endured a traumatic economic crisis prior to the Nazi's ascent to power and were just relieved to have steady employment, which is understandable. They were also undoubtedly pleased by some of the better social welfare reforms the regime had enacted, as well as the Kraft durch Freude project. But that doesn't mean that they enjoyed being submissive to their firm's 'Betriebsführer' or that they agreed with the abolition of independent trade unions. Many workers had acquired a strong sense of class consciousness in the years preceding 1933, and actively expressed their discontent with the regime's more objectionable policies:

"Strike threats, heated industrial conflicts and actual strikes were in fact not infrequent in Germany after 1935. In an important policy document of October 1936 Ministers noted that strike attempts by skilled workers, in order to gain wage increases, were no longer a rarity. A tabulation of strikes has recently come to light in the Wiener Library in London. For the 18-month period from February 1936 to July 1937 the officials of the Information Office of the Labour Front listed 192 strikes and strike-like protests. As a source for historians this confidential memorandum has many defects and the list of strikes is not even fully complete. But it is the best document that we have to date on this important theme, and the strikes which it does tabulate can certainly be taken as a large and representative cross-section of those which did take place.

". . . .The strikes were also all short-lived—the Gestapo, state and party officials were always on the spot the same day, often within hours. The strikes all seem to have been about questions of wages and working conditions; sometimes specific acts of chicanery by employers or by the labour exchanges furnished the occasion. Some strikes were defensive, others, it seems, offensive efforts to gain improvements.

". . . .Workers wanted free speech, an honest press and radio, higher real wages, a free labour market with the right to change jobs, fewer collections for and fewer demands on their time by Nazi organisations, and no war; between the lines a desire for the reinstatement of trade unions can be detected."
Tim Mason (1981), “The Workers' Opposition in Nazi Germany,” History Workshop Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 120-137.

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

An approach only the simpleminded could take seriously.. In no way can fascism be described as a "common sense world view"; every one of its tenets requires an incredible amount of credulity or indoctrination to be accepted.

Before Stolypin's reforms.

Stolypin's (privatization) reforms applied only to agriculture, and they were of no value in Russia's economic development. Robert Allen is correct in arguing that the use of such capitalist methods wouldn't have succeeded in developing the country's forces of production for long:

"A boom in the world market for wheat more than doubled Russian GDP between 1885 and 1913. Railroad building drew peripheral parts of the Russian Empire into the world market and stimulated a rise in agricultural productivity. Agricultural output doubled, and industrial output was pushed up by an aggressive policy of import substitution. Despite these advances, however, the pace of structural transformation was slow, and the bases of rising income were narrow. The exhaustion of these lines of development and changes in the world economy make it unlikely that Russia could have maintained its nineteenth-century rate of growth through the middle of the twentieth century. Furthermore, the rate of industrialization was not high enough compared to the rate of population growth to shift the structure of the economy dramatically away from agriculture. Rising food prices offset the increase in wages caused by the wheat boom. As a result, the benefits of growth did not trickle down to the working class. In the countryside, the rising incomes from rising wheat prices did not yield social peace since land values rose instead of wages. The advantages of large-scale farms meant that even peasant farming allotment land were threatened by the Stolypin reforms that aimed to replace the commune with a free market in land. It is unlikely that capitalism would have continued to bring economic growth to Russia. Moreover, the process of capitalist development was producing such sharp class conflicts that political instability was hardly a surprise."
Robert C. Allen, Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 46.

here, have some of that medicine doctor

The Soviet Union's rapid rate of industrialization had nothing to do with extracting resources from occupied territories initially.

Jews are responsible for the revolution.

Right, it's not as if the working class and peasantry were outraged with the economic and political situation in the country or anything..

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

That doesn't surprise me. The rag that claims that the Jews invented "Darwinism, Marxism, [and] Nietzche-ism" in order to control the minds of the goyim obviously has great appeal to the conspiracy-minded members of the far right. It's nice to see that you consult such reliable literature.

Tell that to any qualified economist and he will laugh at you.

Even neoclassical economists are honest enough to admit that capitalist economies experience periodic 'business cycles,' though they misdiagnose their causes. The Nazi's use of military Keynesianism undoubtedly produced economic growth, but it was unsustainable.

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

As "revenge" for what, and do you honestly think that justifies the murder or innocent women and children?

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

Exactly what people are these "leaders" responsible to?

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.

Only, in practice, the state invariably sided with capital—which is predictable, considering the rent-seeking behavior typically exhibited by bureaucrats.

"In theory, the corporations were supposed to regulate economic relations between employers and employees, but in practice the tentacles of the Fascist dictatorship made this impossible. Mussolini, in fact, remained at the very centre of the decision-making process, which weakened the autonomy of the corporations. All discussions in the National Council of Corporations had to be approved by him, and corporation regulations could only be made effective by decrees from the Duce, which were rarely forthcoming.

Mussolini was supposed to be enthusiastic about the Corporate State, but the corporations remained ultimately toothless because whereas the employers were fully represented, the workforce was not. Representatives of the working class in the corporations were usually Fascist Party bureaucrats or Ministry of Corporations officials who had no real contact with the shop floor or village. In a similar fashion Bottai's 'Charter of Labour', which was supposed to focus on labour relations and social issues, proved to be a sad disappointment for those syndicalists of the Rossoni era who had seen the Corporate State as a means of eradicating class tensions and regulating capitalism.

Employers in Confindustria were gratified that the corporations did not involve them in any kind of centralised Soviet-style planning machanism. Neither were the Fascist syndicates represented at the shop-floor level in the way that free trade unions were represented by shop stewards. In fact, the syndicates continued to be an instrument for the coercion of a working class which was penalised if it dared to strike, and which suffered severe wage cuts between 1930 and 1934."
Peter Neville, Mussolini (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 112-113 (bold emphasis added).

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.

Strikes are the only reason workers have a decent standard of living today. Apparently you haven't notice how the decline in organized labor witnessed in recent years has been accompanied by a sudden rollback of many of the rights workers struggled to achieve in the 20th century.

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.

What an incredible display of cognitive dissonance. Fascism desires "freedom" for the masses? Certainly not the freedom for laborers to collectively control their workplaces, for citizens to elect their representatives, for women to possess any autonomy, or for people to be permitted the right to uncensored speech. It is communism that seeks to provide everyone with the means by which to truly control their lives, not your authoritarian nightmare.

Capitalism is not a sustainable or efficient economic system

As unstable, inefficient, and unsustainable as capitalism is, it performs far better than the corporativist derivation fascists promote. Fascist corporativism obstructs the process of capital accumulation by erecting too many cumbersome, bureaucratic barriers. Such procedures can function within the confines of a planned economy, but that level of centralized planning cannot be made to work with capitalism. The bourgeoisie will resist it, and the proletariat will only submit to it insofar as they fear state reprisal.

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.

Rapists also "get what they want," but that doesn't justify their behavior. And though it's true that capitalists have they benefit of not being exploited by other men, they are nevertheless subservient to the law of value.

Their exploitation is not justified

As Marxists, we fundamentally disagree with your definition of "exploitation."

For all their obsession with economics neither capitalism nor Marxism produce economic mode of production suitable to all classes

That's true, because Marxists aren't interested in creating a "economic mode of production suitable to all classes." We seek to end class society in toto.

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.

False dichotomy. I would prefer to live in a modern economy organized in manner analogues to the territories occupied by the CNT-FAI between 1936-1939, or to the early soviets in Russia.

For the majority of our existence as a species, humans lived in a relatively egalitarian tribal setting (sometimes referred to as 'primitive communism'); examples of egalitarian societies throughout history abound. The task before communists, however, is to succeed in the class struggle and reorganize modern society on such a basis—and perfectly viable models to achieve that exist.

Promising everyone nice things because you will steal it from the ones that earned it isn't called creating something new.

It's appropriate to quote James Connolly on the issue of Marxists allegedly promoting theft:

"We would certainly confiscate the property of the capitalist class, but we do not propose to rob anyone. On the contrary, we propose to establish honesty once and forever as the basis of our social relations. This Socialist movement is indeed worthy to be entitled The Great Anti-Theft Movement of the Twentieth Century. . . . According to Socialists, profit only exists when all other items of production are paid for. The workers by their labour must create enough wealth to pay for certain items before profit appears. They must pay for the cost of raw material, the wear and tear of machinery, buildings, etc. (the depreciation of capital), the wages of superintendence, their own wages, and a certain amount to be left aside as a reserve fund to meet all possible contingencies. After, and only after, all these items have been paid for by their labour, all that is left is profit. . . . You understand that this has been going on ever since the capitalist system came into being; all the capital in the world has been paid for by the working class over and over again, and we are still creating it, and recreating it. And the oftener we buy it the less it belongs to us. The capital of the master class is not their property; it is the unpaid labour of the working class—'the hire of the labourer kept back by fraud.'"
James Connolly, Socialism Made Easy (Glasgow: Socialist Labour Press, 1920), pp. 5-6.

There is a reason communists demand the 'expropriation of the expropriators.'

by kikehunt Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Celtiberian wrote:My response to Guest777 on this issue can be extended to our debate as well.

You need to cut out the pretense, we have been treating you with enough respect to expect some reciprocity. You ignore large parts of our posts, so that excuses us to do the same. You generalize, treat over tracks we long covered, and are generally condescending in your tone of voice. Excuse me if I will do the same, if you do not change your behavior, I will not either.

This is ironic, coming from a person whose posts are replete with personal insults.

Yeah, as if this is something you do not indulge in, except in a passive-aggressive manner. Whatever insults I gave, none of which were directed at you personally, were deserved.

The only posts I've deleted have been those which contain no serious content

How about the two articles then. you are also not the only one deleting

"Normal people" don't value the freedom of speech?

Read the quote again, I said it has no objective moral value. It is not more important than survival.

There's no need to. It's abundantly clear that Iron March has failed in its attempt to critique Marxism, left-wing nationalism, and the Socialist Phalanx—and I'm quite confident that impartial viewers of the thread would agree with that assessment.

lol, after all the pretense and butthurt? I do not think so. Perhaps I am biased in this, but so are you, and I would say Ben absolutely smoked you. You may be outspoken and intelligent, but what he did was bring an actual case to the table. You did your best to avoid this, and if you could simply go back and read what you said with an objective mind, that would be clear as daylight. it is clear to everyone else as well, which is why they have done their best to swindle their way out of admitting the defeat that you deserve. No one can 'declare' the result, so we will have to leave it for the birds, but I will write you Ben's thoughts on this whole thing, simply so you can know what common sense feels like;

What a total waste of time that was as well, Me and Vlad ran rings around them, and they constantly played dumb. I bitterly regret any involvement in this, I have spent too long here and I take respecting other people's views without qualification for granted, these people have genuinely no intelligence or actual interest in the subject they profess knowledge in. There is seriously no way they would have gotten away with anything they said in the real world, I have more respect for your average revleft poster, who could incidentally beat them as well because at least they are consistent.

The conclusion of this was that all of our responses are now unanswered and these people just wish to be left in peace and refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts their unique fantasy world, Admin is now so arsehurt, not only has he ignored the damming inditements against him by Me and Alex, he is deleting any new responses - my responses, so I take the hint. We are done.

'Marxist nationalism' is a fraud, it is completely arse retarded if you just think about it long enough - in many ways it is equivalent to the 'civic nationalist' dogmatists we have had here in the past, but few and far between. It is motivated entirely by cowardice and and you have to be literally retarded to believe in it. Even attempting a discussion was an act of naive stupidity, vlad's responses was genuinely what they deserved, I wasted a lot of time and learnt the hard way.

As I told you in my previous response, I am disinterested in the specific details concerning Soviet military tactics during the Second World War. Consequently, it's not a subject I'm well versed in, so I'm not in a position to debate the subject.

Perhaps you simply dislike any evidence that disproves your positions. The management of the second world war and the famines were the worst catastrophes in my country's history, yet you brush them aside and say not practically a word. When it comes to the successes of the soviet economy, let me tell you about your country. That is aside the fact that you refuse any objective analysis, you make Marxism into an unattackable philosophy by aligning it only with the movements where you can exuse their existence by saying they were destroyed by fascists; like the Paris Commune, or Mahno's CRIMINAL cossack bandits in the civil war, which you would again know, if it was a subject you were 'versed' in, same with the murder of catholic clergy by the Communards.
It is cowardice at the root of it because you know any real Communist regime, which you secretly support, would not bode well with your liberalistic moral values. It saves you from remaining consistent and accountable to your political philosophy; you can say 'well if only evil capitalism did not' and mark away commie failures as anyone else's fault. 0/10 I hear this sort of shit from your types all the time, it is pathetic. 'muh anarchist commune' that never happened, and never would have lasted, and so on.

The German working class had endured a traumatic economic crisis prior to the Nazi's ascent to power and were just relieved to have steady employment, which is understandable. They were also undoubtedly pleased by some of the better social welfare reforms the regime had enacted, as well as the Kraft durch Freude project. But that doesn't mean that they enjoyed being submissive to their firm's 'Betriebsführer' or that they agreed with the abolition of independent trade unions. Many workers had acquired a strong sense of class consciousness in the years preceding 1933, and actively expressed their discontent with the regime's more objectionable policies

read; red agitators that were not happy with the bread the state gave them. Sort of like the modern government sector workers within the welfare state; the laziest, greediest, most repugnant people on the earth. I would rather sit at a table with Soros or Trump.

The strikes were also all short-lived—the Gestapo, state and party officials were always on the spot the same day, often within hours.

An approach only the simpleminded could take seriously.. In no way can fascism be described as a "common sense world view"; every one of its tenets requires an incredible amount of credulity or indoctrination to be accepted.

Somehow that advocates its own indoctrination to be placed on children from kintergarden in order to prevent, because it is so ridiculous that no person could naturally attain it. Oy vey, the holocaust, here kids read about jew being burned alive for no reason at all except irrational hate. You need to know this for fear that you may indoctrinate yourselves into being nazis.

I am sure though, every single one of hitler's soldiers was forced into it, like albert speer said 'it is like, maaan, we were all under lsd and there was jews and stuff'; every single ss man secretly wanted freedom and democracy so their kids could racemix and convert to islam. They were all just under hitler's spell, and a secret potion. he must have put it in the munich beer.

Stolypin's (privatization) reforms applied only to agriculture, and they were of no value in Russia's economic development. Robert Allen is correct in arguing that the use of such capitalist methods wouldn't have succeeded in developing the country's forces of production for long

nothing better than having a guy named Robert C Allen to tell my about my country, Russia. Also, princeton university press; no marxists huh?

The Soviet Union's rapid rate of industrialization had nothing to do with extracting resources from occupied territories initially.

Are you sure about that?
Did stalin whisper it in your ear, and beg you to keep it a secret?

Right, it's not as if the working class and peasantry were outraged with the economic and political situation in the country or anything..

>2012
>still think jews aren't responsible for wwI

"I participated with Herzl in the first Zionist Congress which was held in Basle in 1897. Herzl was the most prominent figure at that first Jewish World Congress. He worked to achieve an object which had been fixed beforehand. Just as Isaiah foresaw, decades before the event occurred, the victorious power of Cyrus before anyone else, so did Herzl foresee twenty years, before we experienced them, the revolutions brought about by the Great War, and he prepared us for that which was going to happen. He foresaw the splitting up of Turkey, and he foresaw that England would obtain control over Palestine. 'We may expect important developments in the world.' These were the words spoken by Herzl twenty years before the Great War. He added that the events would offer the Jewish people fresh opportunities." (The Judisk Tidskrift, No. 6, Aug.-Sept., 1929, written by Dr. Ehrenpreis, Chief Rabbi of Sweden).

"The Red Terror became so wide-spread that it is impossible to give here all the details of the principal means employed by the [Jewish] Cheka(s) to master resistance; one of the most important is that of hostages, taken among all social classes. These are held responsible for any anti-Bolshevist movements (revolts, the White Army, strikes, refusal of a village to give its harvest etc.) and are immediately executed. Thus, for the assassination of the Jew Ouritzky, member of the Extraordinary Commission of Petrograd, several thousands of them were put to death, and many of these unfortunate men and women suffered before death various tortures inflicted by cold-blooded cruelty in the prisons of the Cheka. I have in front of me photographs taken at Kharkoff, in the presence of the Allied Missions, immediately after the Reds had abandoned the town; they consist of a series of ghastly reproductions such as: Bodies of three workmen taken as hostages from a factory which went on strike. One had his eyes burnt, his lips and nose cut off; the other two had their hands cut off. The bodies of hostages, S. Afaniasouk and P. Prokpovitch, small landed proprietors, who were scalped by their executioners; S. Afaniasouk shows numerous burns caused by a white hot sword blade. The body of M. Bobroff, a former officer, who had his tongue and one hand cut off and the skin torn off from his left leg. Human skin torn from the hands of several victims by means of a metallic comb. This sinister find was the result of a careful inspection of the cellar of the Extraordinary Commission of Kharkoff. The retired general Pontiafa, a hostage who had the skin of his right hand torn off and the genital parts mutilated. Mutilated bodies of women hostages: S. Ivanovna, owner of a drapery business, Mme. A.L. Carolshaja, wife of a colonel, Mmo. Khlopova, a property owner. They had their breasts slit and emptied and the genital parts burnt and having trace of coal. Bodies of four peasant hostages, Bondarenko, Pookhikle, Sevenetry, and Sidorfehouk, with atrociously mutilated faces, the genital parts having been operated upon by Chinese torturers in a manner unknown to European doctors in whose opinion the agony caused to the victims must have been dreadful. It is impossible to enumerate all the forms of savagery which the Red Terror took. A volume would not contain them. The Cheka of Kharkoff, for example, in which Saenko operated, had the specialty of scalping victims and taking off the skin of their hands as one takes off a glove...At Voronege the victims were shut up naked in a barrel studded with nails which was then rolled about. Their foreheads were branded with a red hot iron FIVE POINTED STAR. At Tsaritsin and at Kamishin their bones were sawed...At Keif the victim was shut up in a chest containing decomposing corpses; after firing shots above his head his torturers told him that he would be buried alive. The chest was buried and opened again half an hour later when the interrogation of the victim was proceeded with. The scene was repeated several times over. It is not surprising that many victims went mad." (S.P. Melgounov, p. 164-166; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 151-153).

As "revenge" for what, and do you honestly think that justifies the murder or innocent women and children?

No more than the bombing of Dresden or the rape of Berlin were justified. that is what they call 'war'

the rest of the comments we either 1 covered a million times and you were defeated 2 were not directed at you 3 were too high strung and pretencious to even look at. Sorry. I recommend you stay within the parameters of the discussion next time, keep focused etc

by Guest777 Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:42 pm

Ok, Celtiberian I was pretty disappointed with that. What you have just put was absolutely absurd and a total waste of time for yourself and me – you did yourself no favours at all, and it would have been better had you not replied at all.

It is like you have just not even bothered, and it is insulting for me to formulate an argument and have you try and pass this off as a response. You don’t seem to understand the basic principle of argument. Oh you just ‘couldn’t let this nonsense go unanswered!’ because every line upsets you, and you just can’t let me get away with it. Well boo hoo, you expect me to do all the work - Well too bad for you, by not considering the argument as a whole all your responses are totally worthless and don't say I didn't warn you about it because I did in the strongest terms. You have literally gone line by line commenting whatever you could without even understanding what you are commenting on. The two reasons for this are you divide an argument up into lots of separate individual arguments which ignores an overall argument. Secondly your responses in no way relate to the point that they are responding to and not just for the previous reason, there appears to be no reason for it other than you don’t have a response. The existence of these parallel arguments means you are answering with points discounted by earlier lines.

You just played dumb, at least I HOPE you are playing dumb here and I find it is more than convenient that you have found exception with my work; instead of debating the issue I am stuck holding your hand down an endless detour. Now we have reached a singularity where I am able to refute your responses with the points you are responding to – which is pretty much as hard as one can fail a debate. It is very simple, it is not that you have a problem with what I have written as you claim, and it is not that I have neccissarily 'beaten' you, it is just that you are incapable of following the discussion any longer, either that or you flat out pretend you cannot see my argument.

You have the audacity to give me 'constructive criticism' (It is noted that when you ignored my entries you didn’t dare justify it then) – So here is some constructive criticism. I am going to give a step by step post-mortem of your main response, at least in regards to the main argument, I think I owe you that. No hard feelings but I don't have a lot of sympathy, as you have by your own admission simply ignored the bulk of my posts all this time and I think it is about time I put an end to it. You can Look over it if you want but I think we are done, I gave you a chance to respond to my inditement against this forum and you proved incapable.

Q 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.
R "Integral" in what sense? Conflict and division are to be expected amongst peoples whose national sentiments are not congruent with the state they are legally bound to.

FAIL
Irrelevant question, irrelevant point. In no way relates to what was a central argument – which is important later because it is not considered afterwars. You do not need to agree but I need a yes or no.

Q 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.

R They are incomparable. Maclean envisaged a self-determined Scottish republic organized on the communist principles of mutual aid and collective governance. This is the exact converse of the cosmopolitan project of progressively dismantling territorial nations until a global consciousness, accompanied by the abolition of national boundaries, is attained.

FAIL
A no true Scotsman fallacy. Literally. I am not sure if you are just playing stupid here, you state your opposition to salmond but you wouldn’t have written that if you actually say a broadcast or SNP policy document. What does this demonstrate? Anything that proves

Q 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.

R Regionalism represents the point of origin for many nations, and since modern nation-states are the product of a coerced fusion of various tribes and/or kingdoms, the ones which retained their former cultural identities to an appreciable extent are frequently those which continue to struggle on behalf of national self-determination (Scots, Basques, Catalans, Austrians, etc.).

FAIL
Again this does not address what nationalism is and in no way responds to my point,.

Q: 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.

R: Setting aside my utter disinterest in the objectives of petit-bourgeois bureaucrats like Alex Salmond, it's patently absurd for you to suggest that John Maclean was involved in a plot devised by international financiers to undermine Great Britain—which is a conspiracy theory Hitlerians commonly use when attempting to defame communists. As for the First World War, it was a travesty in which millions of working people were used as cannon fodder to advance the interests of monarchism and national capital.

FAIL
My answer as to why this is, as stated in an earlier point, that Salmond is a direct descendant of Maclean, an you can judge his ideas better by how they are being applied today. I never once said Maclean was a tool of international finance himself, not knowingly, and he may well have been a believing socialist – Alex Salmond though is open in his wish to financially enslave his country; Scotland has a deficit subsidised by Britain – his answer is that the European Union would take the place in Britain with loans citing (before the crash) the Pets of Europe; The Irish, the Portuguese, the Greeks, etc. but you should already know this to understand what I meant.
Maclean was a traitor, he made a pact with an enemy power in a time when a million of his people were in the front – irregardless of how horrible it all was (not that you could understand or give a fuck) those people were very much fighting for their own futures. Germany waged an aggressive and brutal war against Britain, she would have surely stolen our empire and made us pay massive war debts. but who cares about that? All those Russians at Stalingrad should have thrown down their guns rather than fight in the most ruthless battle in history? Right? Your sentimentalism is fake.

Q: 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.

R: You've not demonstrated why Scottish or Irish nationalism fails to qualify as "real" nationalism.

FAIL
I never said Ireland wasn’t a nation. I said why Scotland is not a nation previously (In every point related to this topic) but you have totally refused to refute any of my arguments to this effect.
Can you see where this method of yours utterly fails?

Q 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’.

R Revolutionaries obviously fight against the status quo because it conflicts with their notion of justice. National revolutions will only cease when every people are allowed the right to self-determination, and when imperialistic modes of production (e.g., capitalism) have been superseded by communism.

FAIL
Does not answer the point of how it has only ever been anti nationalistic. You say that is just about always being opposed to the staus quo thereby in principle you see no different between nationalism and the status quo and therefore you are always anti nationalist. MLK and Ghandi are on every classroom wall, but they totally don’t represent the status quo; Britain, France, America etc are still evil racist social constructs that should be broken up etc. Do you see how you are not coming over with nationalist sentiments very well.

Q 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.

R Contrary to fascists, we don't spend an inordinate amount of time on such issues because we understand that they can't even be addressed until capitalism has been abolished, thereby rendering them conjoined with the social question. Moreover, being that we're not racists and adhere to a democratic form of nationalism, it is not up to us to dictate to the working class how these demographic changes should be interpreted. Personally, I am opposed to ideas such a forced repatriation and instead support alternatives such as national personal autonomy, confederation, assimilation, secession, and voluntary/assisted repatriation.

FAIL
Again this ignores the basis of the argument that follows later, though you might not have known that if you didn’t read it in advance. This is the only thing that even approaches a counter argument and it is a cop out that ignores previous points. I should overthrow capitalism – ok, maybe do-able , but what then. You with your criminal state based concept opposition to nationalism and fascist values would make things even worse?
Again my previous argument - The purpose of politics is this; the preservation and maintenance of a people’s existence. This comes before anything. Your method is arse backwards and we reject it because without that guarantee fighting capitalism is worthless.
“If I had a choice to shoot an enemy or a traitor in front of me I would shoot the traitor” – Codreanu
Catch my drift?

Q 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.

R As if that should trouble us. The reaction a handful of cosmopolitan socialists have is of no consequence; they have maintained hegemony over the Left on this issue for over 50 years and have consistently failed to make any progress among the proletariat whatsoever. Only the response of the working class matters to us.

FAIL
It is of relevance because you used this as one of your main arguments that you were sufficiently fighting for nationalist values, never mind ‘debating tirelessly’ – just showing that you could hold up in one debate with a believing cultural Marxist would have been all I needed.
Well, they still managed to kick your arse anyway. Not many would come down here because it is obvious to any outsider that as socialists you are inconsistent and cannot be reasoned with

Q 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.

R Accusations of racism are imbecilic because we don't espouse racial nationalism. And despite what they (and you) think, nationalism is not inherently racist because nations needn't be racially or ethnically exclusive.

FAIL
‘I reject racism’ therefore I can’t be racist is fallacious and retarded logic. This point I made in my argument You ignored it.

Q: What 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.

R Provide examples of our alleged "backtracking." I have been unambiguous and persistent in my criticism of those who seek to reduce national identity to a mere epiphenomenon of capital, and have consistently argued that Marx and Engels didn't sufficiently address the national question—though one could hardly fault them, considering how time consuming the development of their critique of political economy must have been.

Every single discussion with leftists on here, and the above entry. You cannot front an opposition and your only solution is to RUN from debate, General Patton.

Q 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.

R Incorrect. It's not a form of avoidance to quote figures who share(d) views in common with Marxian left-wing nationalism. The reason people choose to quote historical figures in general is because they wish to give credit to the individuals responsible for having influenced their opinion on a particular topic; our use is no different. Of course, it astonishes cosmopolitan socialists and fascists alike to learn that we haven't concocted left-wing nationalism ex nihilo, that it's a current which once possessed widespread support among communists and socialists, and that can surely be a motivating factor as well—especially when one is accusing us espousing views antithetical to communism.

FAIL
This entire argument summarises exactly what I said about you appealing only to your Marxist credentials. The weight of evidence speaks against you, and all you have is this. You have no integrity whatsoever.

Q 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.

R I'm "justifying" nothing. I provided you with the Marxist definitions of the nation you requested. Moreover, "pride" and "security" are hardly attributes that define nationality, for one can take pride in, say, the accomplishments of a athletic club, or feel secure by seeing a police car patrol their neighborhood).

FAIL
Again you totally refuse to repond to any argument against you, you are clutching at straws. My argument is that for reasons unknown you have a guilt complex because leftism is degenerative and evil. You recognise this as you say so yourself, but you call it ‘cosmopolitanism’ and literally INVENT your own interpretation of Marxism to include nationalism – But as I have argued this is just a folly; Your nationalism is empty and full of crass pretending and mock Integralism. It is a joke.

Q 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.

R Nonsense. Marxist theoreticians like James Connolly and Otto Bauer explicitly separated national identity from state formalities, as did Marx and Engels.

Which as I have just explained with an already stated point, when you alluded to the Marx/Bauer ‘Jewish question’ that the sole purpose should be to destroy capitalism – this negates any nationalism, and the Nationalist State based concept – that a state must stand to ensure the existence of the people.
oh… FAIL

Q 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.

RThe "blood and soil" doctrine is mystical drivel, and whatever identification people feel for their racial or ethnic group is extraneous to their national identity. I share my race in common with Germans, Italians, and Portuguese, but I don't share a national identity with them; ethically, I am indistinguishable from an Asturian, but, from a national perspective, they would regard me as they do any other American. Simply put, your conception of "nationalism" is guilty of amalgamating disparate psychological phenomena.

FAIL
Here you admit that Marxism is antithetical to what we understand as nationalism, and what has only ever been nationalism now and ever more.

Q Greater than the Marxist scripture is the revolutionary idea behind it, the metaphysics of a revolutionary idea; what is acceptable today is not tomorrow.

R The Marxist tradition I follow on the national question is quite clear in stating that national self-identification is an enduring trait, influenced by, but not reducible to, material conditions.

You are a weak Marxist, though you do not really care for nationalism, you deny the essence of Marxism. What that is, I have made plain, the performance of Socialist Phalanx when debating leftists is like a debate between an new ager and a preacher in the matters of the spirit, you judt don't show any commitment or belief.

Q 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.

R It is a fight only a fascist should handle, because only fascists are of the opinion that they should unilaterally determine what a nation's immigration policy should be. Left-wing nationalists, by contrast, submit to the people's demands on the issue—the opposite of the Hitlerian practice of having the party "not serve the masses but rather dominate them."

FAIL
This was a point about leadership. The people’s will needs to attach itself to a solid principle so it knows where it is going. That is the true meaning of the people’s will. Who determines the will of the people in Marxist society? ‘Intellectuals’. A fascist movement cannot exist without the love of the people. You on the other hand will not be any conduit to the people’s will if you are shot down all the time which was the point I made.
If as you say, having the people behind you is how you prove yourself then the champions of Marxism are surely the revleft users or whoever is behind the occupy movement, student socialist groups, hipsters etc. They have gained their authority by being more principled Marxist fanatics than you. This is what was meant by Hitler’s statement that you referred to.

I think I have made my point by now. The rest is another story but you will probably not want to banter after this, which I would quite understand. I promise I will at least read your responses to the rest of the thread, but I have a feeling they are probably going to be simmilar.

This forum is a farce and all you have achieved with this discussion is a monument to why you are all a complete waste of time. None of you know what an argument is and you debate like special ed students; not debating POSITIONS, but bringing up irrelevant memorised factoids and emotionaly deluded narratives - it is therefore impossible for us to really prove ourselves here in any way, so yeah - Make of this what you will, but until somebody is capable of a substanitve debate I am done with this place.

by **Celtiberian** Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:59 am

kikehunt wrote:You need to cut out the pretense, we have been treating you with enough respect to expect some reciprocity.

Surely you realize that I have been exercising an extraordinary amount of self-control by not closing this thread, given the violations of our forum guidelines that Iron March guests have repeatedly committed. You will have to excuse me for not 'respecting' individuals who are incapable of engaging in a debate without using profanity, racial and homophobic slurs, and who believe that posts written in 4chan-esque 'internet lingo' deserve serious replies. Were Socialist Phalanx members to have joined Iron March en masse and behaved similarly, I seriously doubt we would have been allowed to post for long.

You ignore large parts of our posts, so that excuses us to do the same.

I provided a reasonable explanation of why I ignore facets of your posts. I really don't mind if you choose to do likewise.

You generalize, treat over tracks we long covered, and are generally condescending in your tone of voice.

Apart from condescension, which I concede the tone of my posts can occasionally be accused of, that is an inaccurate representation of my contribution to this debate.

How about the two articles then. you are also not the only one deleting

Your two propaganda pieces were posted in a haphazard manner. When one decides to quote from an article or book, it is advisable to specify the aspect of the debate the quote addresses, and to only use the pertinent passages. You, however, decided to copy and paste entire essays, which is unacceptable in a debate like this. (Individual threads are required to analyze full articles.)

Read the quote again, I said it has no objective moral value.

The issue of whether or not morality 'objectively' exists is one of the most controversial issues in philosophy, and being that you and I espouse antagonistic ethical principles, we're obviously not going to agree on what qualifies as moral or immoral.

It is not more important than survival.

Who suggested otherwise? I think any semi-rational person would agree with Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Iron March Forum - Page 12 2w4k3tx

Survival obviously takes precedence over all else. Civilization, however, begins once society has developed not only the capacity to survive, but to produce a surplus product. The substructure of society circumscribes our range of political and social options—or, as Karl Marx comments in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, "Man makes his own history, but he does not make it out of whole cloth, he does not make it out of conditions chosen by himself but out of such as he finds close at hand"—but we nevertheless possesses the ability to determine many of the ethical principles we enshrine into law. Fascists, being proponents of extreme étatisme, believe that whatever policies best serve to further empower the abstract entity known as the 'state' should be pursued. In other words, the highest good is for people to subordinate themselves to the state's interests. Communists, by contrast, do not recognize the state as anything other than a mechanism of class oppression (we make a distinction between the state and government), and therefore consider it unworthy of ethical consideration—except insofar as its dismantlement is necessary to achieve classlessness. The foundation of our ethical Weltanschauung is mutual aid, equity, and self-management. Those of us who adhere to the Bauerian thesis on the national question also understand the importance of national identity, but favor those sentiments being channeled into a constructive direction (i.e., utilizing them for the task of constructing communism, thereafter allowing them to be expressed peacefully) as opposed to the destructive direction favored by fascists (i.e., social Darwinian struggles for international hegemony).

I would say Ben absolutely smoked you.

'Ben' is incapable of maintaining a coherent line of thought. His arguments have been repeatedly refuted, and only his toadies on Iron March could read through our debate and arrive at such an absurd conclusion.

You may be outspoken and intelligent, but what he did was bring an actual case to the table.

What he 'brought to the table' was a rehash of the cultural Marxism myth, petty criticisms of the Socialist Phalanx's aesthetics, and an infantile straw man argument regarding Marxian left-wing nationalism, all of which I sufficiently addressed.

Benjamin Noyles wrote:What a total waste of time that was as well, Me and Vlad ran rings around them, and they constantly played dumb.

You should be ashamed of having written such a misleading summary of our debate, Noyles. Defeated men often have to deceive themselves into believing they're victors, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised by this pathetic display.

these people have genuinely no intelligence or actual interest in the subject they profess knowledge in.

Not only am I proficient in Marxist analysis and communist theory, but I suspect that I am more knowledgeable in fascist philosophy than you are as well.

There is seriously no way they would have gotten away with anything they said in the real world

And yet I do so on a regular basis.

I have more respect for your average revleft poster

No, you're less threatened by RevLeft posters, because they seldom know what they're talking about.

The conclusion of this was that all of our responses are now unanswered and these people just wish to be left in peace and refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts their unique fantasy world

Against my better judgement, I spent a considerable amount of time carefully responding to every one of your posts to me because I was under the impression that you possessed the cognitive faculties necessary to engage in a meaningful debate. I was wrong. Your attempt to critique our political and economy philosophy has failed spectacularly, and the fact you think otherwise is either an indictment of the British education system or, again, a reflection of your inability to gracefully accept defeat.

'Marxist nationalism' is a fraud, it is completely arse retarded if you just think about it long enough - in many ways it is equivalent to the 'civic nationalist' dogmatists we have had here in the past, but few and far between. It is motivated entirely by cowardice and and you have to be literally retarded to believe in it.

There you have it. Marxian left-wing nationalism is 'fraudulent' because you have to be "retarded to believe in it." Well done!

In no way is our position "motivated by cowardice," unless your conception of bravery consists of espousing transparently ridiculous doctrines like 'Blut und Boden' in the 21st century, or celebrating the murders committed by psychopathic terrorists like Anders Breivik.

kikehunt wrote:Perhaps you simply dislike any evidence that disproves your positions.

No, I simply find literature on military strategy quite tiresome.

The management of the second world war and the famines were the worst catastrophes in my country's history, yet you brush them aside and say not practically a word.

I stated that the famines were a political blunder and that Stalin was naïve for believing that Hitler would honor the non-aggression pact. I unequivocally condemn the human rights violations the Bolsheviks perpetrated, but I also take a balanced approach to the legacy of state socialism in Eastern Europe. So while I denounce the political oppression the Russian people endured, I still appreciate the Soviet's economic achievements nonetheless.

That is aside the fact that you refuse any objective analysis

How would you know? For your information, I have read widely in the literature on state socialism, from sympathetic to highly critical perspectives.

you make Marxism into an unattackable philosophy by aligning it only with the movements where you can exuse their existence by saying they were destroyed by fascists

It's astonishing how you still don't understand this basic point.. Marxism cannot be criticized for the performance of any hitherto existing socialist economy because Marxism is a method of analyzing capital's laws of motion. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels didn't leave behind an economic or political blueprint for revolutionaries to implement because they considered such concepts "utopian." What Marx did leave behind was a scathing critique of Kasernenkommunismus (barracks communism), which strongly suggests that he would have been appalled by the Stalinist regimes of the 20th century. I have gone over this with you several times now.

Mahno's CRIMINAL cossack bandits in the civil war, which you would again know, if it was a subject you were 'versed' in, same with the murder of catholic clergy by the Communards.

Why am I not surprised to see a fascist refer to an admirable revolutionary figure like Nestor Makhno as a "criminal," while bemoaning the deaths of Catholic clergy in the Paris Commune? Clergy of an institution that was instrumental in the oppression of the French working class for centuries, no less.

It is cowardice at the root of it because you know any real Communist regime, which you secretly support, would not bode well with your liberalistic moral values.

Revolutions are violent; I don't celebrate this fact, but I fully acknowledge it. The communist society I advocate on behalf of, however, could not violate the ethical principles I follow because they form the basis of how that society would be organized. Any system that requires an oppressive, autocratic dictatorship to function is unworthy of existing, in my opinion.

I hear this sort of shit from your types all the time, it is pathetic. 'muh anarchist commune' that never happened, and never would have lasted, and so on.

It actually has happened (several times throughout history, and not always by anarchists), and to claim they wouldn't have lasted is a baseless assertion. Also, am I to believe that fascists don't engage in that same exact behavior? 'Muh National Socialism! If only international Jewry hadn't conspired against Germany, the Third Reich would have lasted for a thousand years.'

read; red agitators that were not happy with the bread the state gave them.

Try ordinary workers, who were discontent with the fact their employers were amassing vast profits (via exploitation) while wage increases lagged behind and working conditions remained objectionable.

Sort of like the modern government sector workers within the welfare state; the laziest, greediest, most repugnant people on the earth.

Public sector workers provide a useful service to society, and often at significantly less pay than they could otherwise acquire in the private sector. The idea they're "lazy" is a myth perpetuated by bourgeois propagandists in order to cause division within the working class.

I would rather sit at a table with Soros or Trump.

If the proletarian revolution materializes in the coming years, maybe you will.

Somehow that advocates its own indoctrination to be placed on children from kintergarden in order to prevent, because it is so ridiculous that no person could naturally attain it. Oy vey, the holocaust, here kids read about jew being burned alive for no reason at all except irrational hate. You need to know this for fear that you may indoctrinate yourselves into being nazis.

The Holocaust is continuously taught to children in order to garner sympathy for Israel, which various Western countries have an interest in supporting for geopolitical purposes. The average American doesn't even know what fascism is, so it's not as if the system is exerting much effort into indoctrinating students to oppose it. The repulsion people have for autocracy is innate.

I am sure though, every single one of hitler's soldiers was forced into it

As a matter of fact, many of them were conscripted into the military. Those which weren't were indeed influenced by the regime's skillful use of propaganda.

every single ss man secretly wanted freedom and democracy so their kids could racemix and convert to islam.

As if race mixing and converting to Islam logically follow from freedom and democracy.. Rolling Eyes

Don't bother attempting to use evidence from today to buttress your claim either, because there isn't a legitimately democratic country in existence at the moment.

nothing better than having a guy named Robert C Allen to tell my about my country, Russia.

Scholars frequently possess more knowledge in specific topics pertaining to foreign countries than the lay citizens of those countries do. For example, there are likely many foreign academics that know more about the history of the American War of Independence than I do. Disregarding information just because it's written by a foreigner is incredibly juvenile.

Also, princeton university press; no marxists huh?

Actually, Robert C. Allen isn't a Marxist economist, he is an economic historian who employs orthodox neoclassical methodology in his writings. He's also not a socialist partisan, and that's part of why his work on the Soviet industrial revolution is so interesting. Despite remaining faithful to such a bourgeois analytical framework, he is still objective enough to write that the USSR's economy functioned far better than the majority of his colleagues are willing to admit.

>still think jews aren't responsible for wwI

"I participated with Herzl in the first Zionist Congress which was held in Basle in 1897. Herzl was the most prominent figure at that first Jewish World Congress. He worked to achieve an object which had been fixed beforehand. Just as Isaiah foresaw, decades before the event occurred, the victorious power of Cyrus before anyone else, so did Herzl foresee twenty years, before we experienced them, the revolutions brought about by the Great War, and he prepared us for that which was going to happen. He foresaw the splitting up of Turkey, and he foresaw that England would obtain control over Palestine. 'We may expect important developments in the world.' These were the words spoken by Herzl twenty years before the Great War. He added that the events would offer the Jewish people fresh opportunities." (The Judisk Tidskrift, No. 6, Aug.-Sept., 1929, written by Dr. Ehrenpreis, Chief Rabbi of Sweden).

"The Red Terror became so wide-spread that it is impossible to give here all the details of the principal means employed by the [Jewish] Cheka(s) to master resistance; one of the most important is that of hostages, taken among all social classes. These are held responsible for any anti-Bolshevist movements (revolts, the White Army, strikes, refusal of a village to give its harvest etc.) and are immediately executed. Thus, for the assassination of the Jew Ouritzky, member of the Extraordinary Commission of Petrograd, several thousands of them were put to death, and many of these unfortunate men and women suffered before death various tortures inflicted by cold-blooded cruelty in the prisons of the Cheka. I have in front of me photographs taken at Kharkoff, in the presence of the Allied Missions, immediately after the Reds had abandoned the town; they consist of a series of ghastly reproductions such as: Bodies of three workmen taken as hostages from a factory which went on strike. One had his eyes burnt, his lips and nose cut off; the other two had their hands cut off. The bodies of hostages, S. Afaniasouk and P. Prokpovitch, small landed proprietors, who were scalped by their executioners; S. Afaniasouk shows numerous burns caused by a white hot sword blade. The body of M. Bobroff, a former officer, who had his tongue and one hand cut off and the skin torn off from his left leg. Human skin torn from the hands of several victims by means of a metallic comb. This sinister find was the result of a careful inspection of the cellar of the Extraordinary Commission of Kharkoff. The retired general Pontiafa, a hostage who had the skin of his right hand torn off and the genital parts mutilated. Mutilated bodies of women hostages: S. Ivanovna, owner of a drapery business, Mme. A.L. Carolshaja, wife of a colonel, Mmo. Khlopova, a property owner. They had their breasts slit and emptied and the genital parts burnt and having trace of coal. Bodies of four peasant hostages, Bondarenko, Pookhikle, Sevenetry, and Sidorfehouk, with atrociously mutilated faces, the genital parts having been operated upon by Chinese torturers in a manner unknown to European doctors in whose opinion the agony caused to the victims must have been dreadful. It is impossible to enumerate all the forms of savagery which the Red Terror took. A volume would not contain them. The Cheka of Kharkoff, for example, in which Saenko operated, had the specialty of scalping victims and taking off the skin of their hands as one takes off a glove...At Voronege the victims were shut up naked in a barrel studded with nails which was then rolled about. Their foreheads were branded with a red hot iron FIVE POINTED STAR. At Tsaritsin and at Kamishin their bones were sawed...At Keif the victim was shut up in a chest containing decomposing corpses; after firing shots above his head his torturers told him that he would be buried alive. The chest was buried and opened again half an hour later when the interrogation of the victim was proceeded with. The scene was repeated several times over. It is not surprising that many victims went mad." (S.P. Melgounov, p. 164-166; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 151-153).

I can hardly take a passage penned by an obscure, fanatical conspiracy theorist like Léon de Poncins very seriously. The man was a religious zealot who believed that a Judeo-Masonic plot was succeeding in undermining Christianity and all that's decent in the world. Anyone can take isolated incidents of immense brutality that occurred during the Russian Civil War and attempt to portray the Bolsheviks as bloodthirsty animals, but one could just as easily find similarly horrific acts committed by the counterrevolutionaries and do likewise.

As for the Jews causing the First World War, Poncins provides no compelling evidence in that passage. Mordecai Ehrenpreis claiming that Theodor Herzl "foresaw. . . . events [that] would offer the Jewish people fresh opportunities" isn't the smoking gun you think it is, sorry.

No more than the bombing of Dresden or the rape of Berlin were justified. that is what they call 'war'

The bombing of Dresden and the rape of Berlin weren't justified, regardless of whether they occurred during the war.

by Guest777 Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:08 am

'Ben' is incapable of maintaining a coherent line of thought. His arguments have been repeatedly refuted, and only his toadies on Iron March could read through our debate and arrive at such an absurd conclusion.

lol

by Isakenaz Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:49 am

Guest777 wrote:This forum is a farce and all you have achieved with this discussion is a monument to why you are all a complete waste of time. None of you know what an argument is and you debate like special ed students; not debating POSITIONS, but bringing up irrelevant memorised factoids and emotionaly deluded narratives - it is therefore impossible for us to really prove ourselves here in any way, so yeah - Make of this what you will, but until somebody is capable of a substanitve debate I am done with this place.

Goodbye and be carefull the door doesn't hit your ass on the way out.

On Sat 29 Sep 2012 - 10:08 your still here, what's the matter need a map to the exit.

by Guest777 Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:02 am

Isakenaz wrote:Goodbye and be carefull the door doesn't hit your ass on the way out.

On Sat 29 Sep 2012 - 10:08 your still here, what's the matter need a map to the exit.

Done in the sense that unlike some here I had an actual aim to discuss things, but it has all sort of come to nothing, ergo you are not the place you were, 'done with this place' in that sense. However I still said I was going to monitor this thread, just there won't be any more serious attempts to be constructive because now I genuinely have more important things to do, what can I say other than you squandered it.

by Isakenaz Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:17 am

Guest777 wrote:Done in the sense that unlike some here I had an actual aim here in discussing things, but it has all sort of come to nothing, ergo you are not the place you were, I but I still said I was going to moniter things just there won't be any more serious attempts to be constructive because I genuinely have more important things to do, what can I say other than you squandered it.

Me so sorry. You could argue that you may have come here to discuss, and several members have obliged you very well. However, no matter how succinct or factual their arguments, they failed to meet your criteria of total surrender before the force of your logic. You did not come to debate, merely to convert (sadly these days you are forced to articulate rather than violate). In that you seem to have failed. Certain members have been more civil and pleasant to you than I would have if I was a moderator, I would have banned you immediately and the sad chorus girls that follow you around.
In one of your posts, you said something about Strasserites and others, disguising their fascism in a bid for mainstream acceptance, and that fascists should be proud and not try to hide behind other titles (something like that anyway). Of course you would never do that, you are a proud fascist. Oh hold on a minute, don't you describe yourself as an Integralist?
What's that quote of Obama's about Palin, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig"

by kikehunt Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:37 am

Isakenaz wrote:what's the matter need a map to the exit.

I think you need a map to local autism self-help center.

Celtiberian wrote:You will have to excuse me for not 'respecting' individuals who are incapable of engaging in a debate without using profanity, racial and homophobic slurs, and who believe that posts written in 4chan-esque 'internet lingo' deserve serious replies.

hurr durr, that does not matter. If you do not address your guest with respect do not expect any in return. > has nothing to do with 4chan, it is coding lingo; the trolling and so on were well deserved, which is why they were only scarcely directed at you. They are reserved for the depths of stupidity and incoherence, which anyone with a brain will admit was the content of every single other poster, except the one fellow who's questions I answered.

Your two propaganda pieces were posted in a haphazard manner. When one decides to quote from an article or book, it is advisable to specify the aspect of the debate the quote addresses, and to only use the pertinent passages. You, however, decided to copy and paste entire essays, which is unacceptable in a debate like this. Individual threads are required to analyze full articles.

Were Socialist Phalanx members to have joined Iron March en masse and behaved similarly, I seriously doubt we would have been allowed to post for long.

Here is where you are a hypocrite; that would never happen on iron march. We would not let an asshurt from socphal retard post forever, but we would never censor him, and if he brought anything to the table he would likely not be punished at all. We had a huge thing with the jew we talked about earlier, where initially everyone disliked him, he is a regular poster now. Point being, you took it away to make me look bad, not because you were dissatisfied with the content.
Also, implying my account wasn't banned after three posts. You behave exactly like you anticipated we would, except we actually presume respect. It is this whole socratic heirarcho-capitalist thing, I am sure you've never heard of it.

I think any semi-rational person would agree with Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Survival obviously takes precedence over all else.

Stopped reading here. That was my point to begin with. Move on?

What he 'brought to the table' was a rehash of the cultural Marxism myth, petty criticisms of the Socialist Phalanx's aesthetics, and an infantile straw man argument regarding Marxian left-wing nationalism, all of which I sufficiently addressed.

1 You call it a myth but you never factually disproved it. You simply call it so, and whine or bitch whenever contradicted on this. The most evidence you have actually given is "i've been on campus, I would know" which is a completely redundant claim to authority. We don't need to school you in common sense.
2 Once again it was YOUR people who started the aesthetics debate, Ben simply made a casual comment and answered some sort of attack which nearly ALL of our members partook in after one simple sentence.
3 I would say you are the one with the straw man/ ebul fascists BAAAAAAAAW

You should be ashamed of having written such a misleading summary of our debate, Noyles. Defeated men often have to deceive themselves into believing they're victors, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised by this pathetic display.

right back-atcha

No, I simply find military strategy tiresome.

I find marxist class theory a waste of my time. I still read it, at least for kicks.

I stated that the famines were a political blunder and that Stalin was naïve for believing that Hitler would honor the non-aggression pact. I unequivocally condemn the human rights violations the Bolsheviks perpetrated, but I also take a balanced approach to the legacy of state socialism in Eastern Europe. So while I denounce the political oppression the Russian people endured, I still appreciate the Soviet's economic achievements nonetheless.

Yeah, right, except where does this attitude go when we talk about evil fascists in Germany? "NO GERMANY HAD ECONOMIC SUCCESS BECAUSE THEY WERE EVIL AND THEY STOLE JEWISH CLAY"

No thanks mate. You specifically dull your criticisms of the soviet power because they are your people, you qualm with Nazi Germany therefore cannot be its actual means, which if you knew the history of Jewish treatment and the numberous inconsistencies with the whole holocaust story, would know was infinitely more tactful and reasonable than that of Soviet power in its dealing with regular Russian people, who weren't doing anything subversive at all. Your answer to this will probably be something along the lines of 'hurp holurcust denier!! tolerance police!' so I do not see why I bother.

How would you know? For your information, I have read widely in the literature on state socialism, from sympathetic to highly critical perspectives.

From the fact that you deliberately force a calm acceptance of Bolshevik MURDER, when anything along those lines coming from German National Socialists, you would scream at and baww all over. Get my drift?

It's astonishing how you still don't understand this basic point.. Marxism cannot be criticized for the performance of any hitherto existing socialist economy because Marxism is a method of analyzing capital's laws of motion.

hurp durr; exactly what I said. You are making your worldview into an unattackable position based on complete and utter bullshit. This is where the word 'cowardice' comes from.

Why am I not surprised to see a fascist refer to an admirable revolutionary figure like Nestor Makhno as a "criminal," while bemoaning the deaths of Catholic clergy in the Paris Commune? Clergy of an institution that was instrumental in the oppression of the French working class for centuries.

That is because you are a historical illiterate; you know tomes written by trotscum which talk about perennial class theory, the problem is that you take their word on it, and actually believe this is how history played out. The admirable revolutionary hero Nestor Makhno murdered more jews than Simon Petlyura and general Denikin combined together, around the time they were pillaging the Ukrainian countryside.
This is precisely what the twisted marxist moral system does; you justify bandits and rapists like makhno, but killing father stephen for forcing girlie to wear a dress is A-OKAY.
Again, the word is COWARDICE, because you refuse to acknowledge the nature of your OWN ideas, and REFUSE any information that is contradictory to your worldview. You will go so far as to deny it is a worldview and call it a mere 'method of analysis.' You see my friend though, methods of analysis do not line up innocent people by the wall and execute by firing squad. Fascists awknowledge this, and that is why we do not call ourselves a 'method of analysis;' we understand perfectly well that this would be percieved as bullshit by someone who is strong and militant. Marxists have no problem though, it is okay for them to play weak and stupid, because the half of them today are trannies to begin with; what is there to expect?

Revolutions are violent; I don't celebrate this fact, but I fully acknowledge it.

by bawwing at the onset of any enemy violence but acting like anything that justifies your people killing others is completely good.

It actually did happen (several times throughout history, and not always by anarchists), and to claim they wouldn't have lasted is a baseless assertion. Also, am I to believe that fascists don't engage in that same exact behavior? 'Muh National Socialism! If only international Jewry hadn't conspired against Germany, the Third Reich would have lasted a thousand years.'

You anarchist commune never happened to produce anything than 'favorable working conditions' for a few months, which you have already admitted also exist under fascism and capitalism. I recall periods of prosperity actually being quite longer.
I don't mourn the death of Germany, I accept the flaws and inconsistencies that lead to it. International jewry isn't soley responsible for it. Your anarchist communes though are ENTIRELY responsible for being ass-stupid, contradicting reality, stepping on everyone's feet, and then getting the appropriate dick in the face.

Try ordinary workers, who were discontent with the fact their employers were amassing vast profits (via exploitation) while wage increases lagged behind and working conditions remained objectionable.Public sector workers provide a useful service to society, and often at significantly less pay than they could otherwise acquire in the private sector. The idea they're "lazy" is a myth perpetuated by bourgeois propagandists in order to cause division within the working class.

>ordinary workers
>they are just overpayed
>more pay is good because it is for the workers
here is a quote by Spengler you may enjoy;
"Marx succeeded in preaching contempt for work. Perhaps he did not realize this himself. Work—long, hard, tiring work—is for him a misfortune, and effortless gain a blessing. Behind the typically English disdain for the man who lives by the sweat of his brow we can feel the instinct of the Viking, whose vocation is piracy and not patching sails. For this reason the manual laborer is more a slave in England than anywhere else. And his slavery is moral; he feels that his profession precludes his bearing the title of "gentleman." The concepts "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" reflect the typically English preference for business rather than manual work. [20] The former is a blessing, the latter a calamity; the one is noble, the other base. But with their hatred the misfortunate ones say, "Business is the evil occupation, manual labor the good."
it goes well with your advocacy of the shameless scum that earn 150,000 a year but still strike twice every four months.

If the proletarian revolution materializes in the coming years, maybe you will.

If I will, I'll be holding a weapon. Far more likely you though, i've you've read the protocols, and know anything about the pervasiveness of cultural marxism.

The Holocaust is continuously taught to children in order to garner sympathy for Israel, which various Western countries have an interest in supporting for geopolitical purposes. The average American doesn't even know what fascism is, so it's not as if the system is exerting much effort into indoctrinating students to oppose it.

I am literally shit-in-my-pants laughing. 'oy vey, forgive but never forget, remember what you WHITE CHRISTIANS have done'

As a matter of fact, many of them were conscripted into the military. Those which weren't were taken in by the regime's skillful use of propaganda.

hurr durr soviet jewnion evil proguhanduh, and conscription

As if race mixing and converting to Islam logically follow from freedom and democracy.. Rolling Eyes Don't bother attempting to use evidence from today to buttress your claim either, because there isn't a legitimately democratic country in existence at the moment.

Can't you see there is no such a thing as real 'democracy' based on enlightenment values? I was talking about the modern delusion selfevidently,that is why I put fucking quote marks around the words. Real democracy can only exist under stable, hierarchical social conditions, like in Greece, Rome, older England, or the Novgorod Republic, which are not interrupted by class struggle from either side. Organic society had this, fascism will soon restore it. All the mixers and converts and scheming kikes like yourself will be dead Smile

I can hardly take a passage penned by an obscure, fanatical conspiracy theorist like Léon de Poncins

I can hardly take a passage penned by an obscure, fanatical marxoid retard like celtiberian.

here are a few more, you may like them. Hope you do not delete these because they make your ass to hurt, and of course actual content;

"He considered the Rvolution a victroy for the Jews, which opinion, he said, prevailed on the East Side where rejoicing knew no bounds. We felt, added Mr. Cahan, that this is a great triumph for the Jews' cause. The anti-Jewish element in Russia has always been identified with the anti-revolutionary party. Jews having always sat high in the Councils of the revolutionists, all of our race became inseparably linked with the opponents of the government in the official mind." (New York Call, March 17, 1917, Upheaval in Russia Is Fight for Liberty, Abraham Cahan).

"...It was in England, the home of the Jews, says Mr. Pitt-Rivers, that the Tsar's Government was always systematically vilified, for years made out as the blackest home of tyranny and oppression in the world. although there were English writers like Mr. Stephen Graham who, years ago, went out to Russia to live there because he considered it the freest country in Europe. It was, of course, the least commercialized, while England, one of the most commerciaized countries; and the greatest loverrs and entertainers of Jews, in the world, in consequence, sees no merit in a simple agricultural existence. Neither is it surprising in view of her cult of unlimited industrialism, and its consequences; an ever expanding industrial and urban population, free commercial exploitation by all and sundry middlemen, usurers, Jews; and the translations of all values into money-values, by which alone can be realized that ideal of personal equality, dad-levelness and compulsory mediocrity in which she glories under the name of Liberalism and Democracy. Can England with her tradition of three hundred years of Jeww-loving free-mammonism, democratic-shopkeeping, Puritanism, and obsessional urban-industrial expansion, in any case understand the healthier ideal of rural simplicity and paternal government, which, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of his successor, was the ideal of Alexander III." (George Pitt-Rivers, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, with preface by Dr. Oscar Levy, pp. 20-21, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1920).

"If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands." -- Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book "International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World" (1931)

"The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a 'League of Nations' or a 'Federated Union' to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the 'New International Order,' 'The New World Order,' 'World Union Now,' 'World Commonwealth of Nations,' 'World Community,' etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual." -- excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940)

"America: Submerged in a Sea of Zionism. Will history remember America merely as a major captive nation of Zionist world conquest, ignoring the lustrous ascendance and near triumph of the glorious potential of free man? Will Zionist scorched-earth shots to the heart of all that is wholesome buy them their long-sought victory for Babylonian humanism with its showy irreverence and the glorification of all that is sordid? Will all
of the goodness, wholesomeness and productivity of our unique Christian Republic, which millions forfeited their lives to give us, be purged from the world, leaving man to enter the 21st century enslaved to the least of God's creations? Must Americans forever witness Zionist self-promotion and self-portrayal as our best and brightest, as our most deserving and selfless citizens suffering a society of lesser humans with intellectually
inferior pursuits? Will God allow animal cunning, arrogance, greed and self-aggrandizement a final victory over humanity? With 'political correctness' based upon Zionist fascism in the ascendance, with the American media system largely a Zionist tool, with Foundations and Zionist Political Action Committees spreading legislative dollars and providing selected candidates massive financial support, with two parties and political commentary dominated by the Zionist International, can traditional Americans hope to reverse the current course of history? Can we develop a formula to reclaim our Republic and the tools of a productive society, recapturing or rebuilding the essence of a nation one deservedly the noble and gracious leader of the world's nations

Can we collectively observe that our governmental processes are captive to Zionist appointees at every level, that our State, Treasury and Commerce Departments as well as the Presidency are operated by Zionists who take their order from Zionism? Can we perceive that almost all of the national information-flow reaches us only through a Zionist filter and pro-Israel/Zionist propaganda machine? Have we not discovered the demise of education, the growth and development of crime, the decay of our cities and our rapid decline as a united people have happened concurrent with the intrusion of Zionists and Zionism into the American system? Have we not noticed that today it is increasingly difficult for ordinary people, Jew or Christian, White, Black, Yellow or Brown, to live together in 'live and let live' affection and respect, as the ADL the ACLU and the AIPAC attack society's pillars, move to destroy the Christian history of America and indoctrinate our children with ideas and philosophies that most of the world holds to be reprehensible, society-destructive, and beyond civility? Have we not noticed the fear in our church bodies, the manipulation of them to amend and mutate the teaching of Jesus' word to men?

Here we have history's master victimizers, representing themselves as the victims, as betrayed and sinned against, demeaned and tormented because of society's jealousy; a colony of Culicidae (insects such as mosquitoes and gnats) decrying the occasional angry slap by those that have been stung. We observe the creators of much of man's sordid and duplicitous record artfully and deceitfully altering, amending, abridging and
censoring the record to point the finger of responsibility to others, begging society's pity and solace for pain suggested to have been shared by no other people and never publicly recognizing, though surely perceiving, that it has been their centuries-long manipulation of their fellow man and their self-ordination as gods that has cause the animosity they correctly sense.

Consider an alien system with such a firm hold on American policy mechanisms that they are capable of having American citizenship granted overnight to one of Zionism's most energetic employees and then have him named as American ambassador to his former employer nation and confirmed without a word from our 'illustrious Senate,' including that great defender of American interests, Mr. Jesse Helms? And consider a President's cabinet with 80% Jewish Zionist members and a President, himself a Rhodes Scholar (but unable to finish at Oxford) and a member of the Zionist International; a Trilateralist, Bilderberg secret communist.

Consider an alien philosophy carefully scheming to own and control America's newspaper and broadcasting systems, then combining its now massive propaganda and reinstruc-tional capabilities with the movie, entertainment and documentary producers of Hollywood, in short order reducing life to drugs and sexual fantasies and living to a succession of mindless escapades and romps in the hay; surely and continuously changing Americans then America...finally creating such irresponsible and chaotic conditions in our lives that we then welcome massive regulation, police restraints and New World Order socialist oppression just to get order again; forget morality or social ethics, productivity or national focus.

Consider the raw source of energy and money for the pro-abortion and homosexual lifestyle movements, the illegal immigration madness, loss of personal heritage identity, multi-cultural disarray and the move to make our precious English subordinate to the first choice of everyone's original homeland language. These are funded, not by the grassroots but by single source money ...given in every case to reduce our influential Christian nation to helplessness; Babylonians filled with hate for the Christian people who bade them welcome, spending enormous effort and endless dollars to destroy our once wholesome influence on an ugly world. Witness the altered state of church in America; intimidated, compromised, fearful and spiritless. Are they winning? Look and listen to the new mores of our changed society. Consider which nation is our number one recipient of 'loans' and aid. Note that they take what they want from our military arsenal and then without apology copy and sell it around the world, wherever money is to be made or counties subverted. Note their demand for U.N. (American) troops to clear away the enemy which surrounds their homeland and as stalking horses for their political influence thought the world. From the Pentagon, State, Presidency or the United Nations, their influence and numbers overwhelm any possible opposition and America increasingly does what they demand of us.

And then, dear friends, we have just witnessed once again their absolute mastery over our financial affairs. They own Banking, Investment Banking, the control of every major corporation, of course the 'Fed' and control of the Treasury of the United States. As we have just seen in Mexico, they do as they please, manipulating conditions, loaning then withdrawing support capital and grasping control of the resources of nations one by one, sometimes for profit but always for control. And then there is the depreciating dollar and Americans and the humble Mexicans are about to be enslaved by its demise.

When we add thought-control (political correctness) emanating from our college campuses and the continuous flow of Marxist ideas from Zionist professors to the 'hate crimes' laws and the massive effort to close down unwelcome publishers and Republican ideas, we can see that our Zionist fascist New World Order elitists have left no scheme destructive of Christian freedom left unutilized. Consider then the 'we-are-in-charge' arrogance of the 'Justice' department's 92 Waco murders, followed by official lies and media cover-up, to be followed by massive raids on the citizens' militias that resulted...and national martial law, orchestrated and controlled by our Zionist fascist President in collaboration with the ADL. Finally, we can watch with dismay as black-shirted, hooded world police power is deployed in America, computer programs are prepared for our personal control and prisons are readied for any who would underscore their First Amendment rights by using them. And huge funds of propaganda and money are expended to take from us our last hope of freedom; the Second Amendment and our guns. And 90% of Americans haven't a hint, a clue. So brainwashed are they that when push comes to shove, most of them will unknowingly side with this enemy. So we who perceive must do the work of thousands." (Ameirch Focus, Commentaries on America).

I think I have little left to prove here. I will also withdraw, occasionally I may make a few informative posts, but other than that I am done.
Pleasure having been here, many lulz were had at your expense, many more shall be on 4chan. What else? Communism is dead, really; dead. One hour on revleft is all the proof you need. that is it, later guys

by kikehunt Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:44 am

Isakenaz wrote:Of course you would never do that, you are a proud fascist. Oh hold on a minute, don't you describe yourself as an Integralist?

The purpose of 'integralist' is to de-politicize fascism. For example, in Britain, when you say fascist this immediately conjures the image of Benito Mussolini and Hitler; foreign fascist movements. The goal is to not imply that we will be recreating the same thing today, while maintaining the heart and soul of the fascist worldview, which is explained to anyone who poses the question; what is 'integralism?' It would be similar to mine calling myself a national socialist in Russia. That would be redundant and have no basis in reality, and a very stupid political move, because of people's pre-concieved notions of it. But were I would immediately explain that I am a fan of Adolph Hitler and what he did for his people.

It is explained in Ben's interview with the Voice of Reason radio network, Robert Stark. You can listen to this interview here; h ttp:/ /reasonradionetwork.c om/20120615/the-stark-truth-interview-with-benjamin-noyles

by Guest777 Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:55 pm

Isakenaz wrote: You did not come to debate, merely to convert (sadly these days you are forced to articulate rather than violate). In that you seem to have failed.

I have never attempted to convert anyone here, from the beginning all of my posting has been adversarial. I have since made clear my contempt for socialist phalanx and all the people here, and that you are irreconcilable and moreover useless to anyone, including communists. Your assertion that my intention was to recruit any of you is just retarded and has no basis. 0/10

In one of your posts, you said something about Strasserites and others, disguising their fascism in a bid for mainstream acceptance, and that fascists should be proud and not try to hide behind other titles (something like that anyway). Of course you would never do that, you are a proud fascist. Oh hold on a minute, don't you describe yourself as an Integralist?

I don't differentiate between fascism and Integralism. I don't use Integralism because I don't want to be called a fascist (which is what I have used throughout the discussion), I use it because fascist has a political sense attached to it like there is some kind of very specific social and economic programme which is not really what it is about. To have your platform as specifically ‘fascist’ is spergy, and in relation to the previous principle, most people who call themselves fascist do so because they are who cowardly to call themselves Nazis, and we would get lumped in with them - I use Integralist to denote what we have specifically created in relation to other right wing ideologies and because we cannot afford false impressions. Any review of my work, or even my posting here shows now attempt to conceal or hide any intentions or viewpoints.

by **Celtiberian** Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:28 pm

Guest777 wrote:You don’t seem to understand the basic principle of argument. Oh you just ‘couldn’t let this nonsense go unanswered!’ because every line upsets you, and you just can’t let me get away with it. Well boo hoo, you expect me to do all the work - Well too bad for you, by not considering the argument as a whole all your responses are totally worthless and don't say I didn't warn you about it because I did in the strongest terms.

Coming from an individual whose posts are replete with logical fallacies and extraneous text, and who is apparently unable to formulate a comprehensible argument, this is especially amusing. But let's see if there is any validity to your claim that my responses were "totally worthless."

It is very simple, it is not that you have a problem with what I have written as you claim, and it is not that I have neccissarily 'beaten' you, it is just that you are incapable of following the discussion any longer, either that or you flat out pretend you cannot see my argument.

If I'm failing to 'see your argument,' it's because it remains elusive. I've responded to all that's worth responding to in your posts. In other words, you're the source of your exasperation—that is, if this isn't just a charade (which part of me suspects it is). You should really consider following my advice regarding the merits of attempting a more lucid prose.

Irrelevant question, irrelevant point. In no way relates to what was a central argument – which is important later because it is not considered afterwars. You do not need to agree but I need a yes or no.

It's a perfectly reasonable question, given that 'integralism' seems to represent the foundation of your conception of nationality. I'm unfamiliar with what you mean by it, and therefore require further information in order to continue debating nationalism with you. My point was also relevant, because the existence of national strife in many of the countries you probably consider "integral" (e.g., Great Britain) contradicts the notion that these nations are organic.

A no true Scotsman fallacy. Literally.

You clearly don't understand what the no true Scotsman fallacy entails. You asserted that Maclean's nationalism was "by its direct trajectory no different to the cosmopolitan liberalism of the Scottish project as it stands today," which is incorrect. Assuming you're referring to a legitimate cosmopolitan trajectory in contemporary Scottish politics (i.e., a political project that seeks the abolition of national boundaries and distinctions), and not another paranoid delusion, Maclean's objective cannot logically be considered to be in conformity with anything of the sort. He fought for Scottish independence, which would result in the formation of another nation. What is salient here is how such an outcome undermines cosmopolitanism. In fact, the only way the struggle for national self-determination can be argued to be consistent with cosmopolitan values is if it is being explicitly utilized for its instrumental value in the long-term pursuit of cosmopolitanism. Maclean, however, never wrote that he sought that end, and very likely considered national self-determination to be of intrinsic value, as Marxian left-wing nationalists do. (He was undoubtedly a proletarian internationalist, but recall that internationalism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive concepts, since the latter is required for the former to exist.)

You are erroneously inferring that Scottish nationalism, whatever the intentions of the individuals who espouse it, will serve to eradicate national distinctions by way of cosmopolitanism. But as a nationalist, you should understand that cosmopolitanism cannot be achieved without coercion, because it violates our innate sense of justice and self-identity. And since, in addition to being a nationalist, Maclean was a democratic communist, he didn't even promote a mode of governance that would enable would-be cosmopolitan social engineers to possess the means by which to embark on such a project.

Again this does not address what nationalism is and in no way responds to my point

I explained what I consider nationalism to be much earlier in our debate. You chose to ignore it and now claim that I haven't addressed the issue.

My answer as to why this is, as stated in an earlier point, that Salmond is a direct descendant of Maclean, an you can judge his ideas better by how they are being applied today.

By no means is Alex Salmond a "direct descendant of Maclean." The most obvious difference between them is that Salmond is a social democrat, which means that his nationalism fails to align with what Maclean considered to be of the utmost importance to a Scottish nation: communist social relations. Capitalism destroys any genuine sense of community by inculcating the masses with an ethos of possessive individualism and erecting hierarchical and oppressive class divisions, and since community is a cornerstone of Marxian left-wing nationalism, the respective views of Maclean and Salmond are irreconcilable. There was also an ethnic undercurrent in Maclean's nationalism—e.g., "communism prevailed amongst the Irish clans as amongst the Scottish clans, so that, in lining up with Scotsmen they are but carrying forward the traditions and instincts of the Celtic race"—that is absent in Salmond's.

Alex Salmond though is open in his wish to financially enslave his country; Scotland has a deficit subsidised by Britain – his answer is that the European Union would take the place in Britain with loans citing (before the crash) the Pets of Europe; The Irish, the Portuguese, the Greeks, etc. but you should already know this to understand what I meant.

How is this germane to the discussion? Are you suggesting that if John Maclean were alive today and faced a similar situation, he would advocate on behalf of the same policy Salmond is? Actually, don't bother answering that. I can think of no reason to entertain your ridiculous speculations.

Maclean was a traitor, he made a pact with an enemy power in a time when a million of his people were in the front – irregardless of how horrible it all was (not that you could understand or give a fuck) those people were very much fighting for their own futures. Germany waged an aggressive and brutal war against Britain, she would have surely stolen our empire and made us pay massive war debts. but who cares about that?

I don't accept the fascist use of the term "traitor," especially in this context. Maclean believed that he was being faithful to his people by rejecting the bourgeoisie's war for geopolitical hegemony, just as many other principled socialists across the world were also doing at the time (e.g., Eugene V. Debs, Vladimir Lenin, James Connolly, and Victor L. Berger). Being a proponent of proletarian internationalism, he advocated for the working class of Europe to collectively resist participating in the war. Had that strategy worked, Germany wouldn't have been in a position to inflict any damage onto Great Britain. Unfortunately, history turned out differently, with bourgeois nationalists succeeding in sending millions of working people to their deaths.

I said why Scotland is not a nation previously (In every point related to this topic) but you have totally refused to refute any of my arguments to this effect.

I have done so throughout this debate, you're just too dense to realize it.

Does not answer the point of how it has only ever been anti nationalistic. You say that is just about always being opposed to the staus quo thereby in principle you see no different between nationalism and the status quo and therefore you are always anti nationalist.

I did not conflate nationalism with the status quo, I said national revolutions "will only cease when every people are allowed the right to self-determination, and when imperialistic modes of production (e.g., capitalism) have been superseded by communism." There are nations across the world currently struggling for the right to self-determination. Why? Because their national sentiments are not congruent with the country they're legally bound to. Nationalism derives from a combination of human psychology and modernity, it isn't something which the elite fabricated—though, again, they can manipulate national sentiments to facilitate reactionary objectives.

MLK and Ghandi are on every classroom wall, but they totally don’t represent the status quo

The elite chooses which aspects of those figures to celebrate and which to exclude in accordance with what's in their class interest. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, is upheld as a role model due to his civil rights activism, but his intimate involvement in social justice causes is either marginalized or intentionally omitted. Ruling classes have been co-opting folk heroes in such a manner throughout history.

Britain, France, America etc are still evil racist social constructs that should be broken up etc. Do you see how you are not coming over with nationalist sentiments very well.

I never argued that Britain, France, or America are "evil" or "racist," so don't misrepresent my position. I claimed that, like Rhodesia, the origins of the United States are ethically contemptible. I also said that most contemporary countries were established by an equally abhorrent history of coercion. That doesn't imply that those countries should be dismantled, however. Since their founding, they have established a history and culture of their own that people now identify with.

Countries should only be "broken up" insofar as segments of their populations deserve the right to self-determination. To a fascist, this is obviously heresy, because your social Darwinian Weltanschauung has led you to believe that nations are involved in an eternal struggle with one another over resources. Consequently, any policy that results in depriving a country of territory or manpower is condemned because it 'weakens' the nation's ability to prevail in that struggle. Marxian left-wing nationalists, however, regard this struggle as illusory, and understand that mutual aid can form the basis of international relations in a post-capitalist world.

I should overthrow capitalism – ok, maybe do-able , but what then. You with your criminal state based concept opposition to nationalism and fascist values would make things even worse?

If you believe that national self-determination and communist social relations would make things "worse," then yes. You never defined what you consider "fascist values" to be, but if they include patriarchy, militarism, hierarchy, or dictatorship, you will undoubtedly reject Marxian left-wing nationalism.

The purpose of politics is this; the preservation and maintenance of a people’s existence. This comes before anything.

And I readily accept that. Where we disagree is on how to define 'people' in this context. I regard national identity as distinct from racial or ethnic identity (though the latter can represent a facet of it, depending on historical circumstances), whereas you consider them indistinguishable.

It is of relevance because you used this as one of your main arguments that you were sufficiently fighting for nationalist values, never mind ‘debating tirelessly’ – just showing that you could hold up in one debate with a believing cultural Marxist would have been all I needed.

You're mistaken. You specifically asked for links to threads that demonstrate that "Nationalism is consistent with leftism." I obliged by recommending that you review our Cosmopolitans sub-forum, which is brimming with debates wherein we argue just that. Nowhere did I cite it as evidence of us "fighting for nationalist values." Where I reside (the United States), the social question must take priority over the national question, because the latter can't even be addressed until the former is solved. (Interclass national liberation movements require material conditions that are absent in most Western countries.)

Well, they still managed to kick your arse anyway.

I surely hope that was an attempt at humor. Every cosmopolitan that has attempted to debate us either admitted defeat or fled out of embarrassment caused by being so thoroughly refuted.

Not many would come down here because it is obvious to any outsider that as socialists you are inconsistent and cannot be reasoned with

Apart from being the converse of reality, it's incredible that a member of Iron March would have the audacity to accuse anyone of being ideologically "inconsistent." For example:

Exhibit a.)
Iron March Forum - Page 12 Mhvtxz

Exhibit b.)
Iron March Forum - Page 12 2zq9180

Exhibit c.)
Iron March Forum - Page 12 30cqcza

Exhibit d.)
Iron March Forum - Page 12 2s8s6k9

Exhibit e.)
Iron March Forum - Page 12 350ox7m

‘I reject racism’ therefore I can’t be racist is fallacious and retarded logic.

It's pretty straightforward, actually. One cannot be accused of 'racism' unless they support, whether implicitly or explicitly, policies that result in the oppression of specific racial groups. We do not.

Every single discussion with leftists on here, and the above entry. You cannot front an opposition and your only solution is to RUN from debate, General Patton.

If this were true, you wouldn't have had any difficulty providing instances of me (or any other member) 'running from a debate.' The reason you didn't is because none exist. I can handle idiocy, but I will not tolerate lying.

This entire argument summarises exactly what I said about you appealing only to your Marxist credentials.

I quote Marxist theoreticians who espoused a similar view on the national question as I when it is appropriate to do so. When one is accused of not being a legitimate Marxist, for whatever reason, it is useful to explain to them why their accusation is fallacious by citing evidence to the contrary. It would be akin to me claiming you're not a Hitlerite since you espouse a certain policy, then you responding by quoting a passage from Heinrich Himmler in which he promotes that exact policy. There's absolutely nothing objectionable about it, so it's a mystery as to why you consider it a 'gotcha moment.'

My argument is that for reasons unknown you have a guilt complex because leftism is degenerative and evil. You recognise this as you say so yourself, but you call it ‘cosmopolitanism’ and literally INVENT your own interpretation of Marxism to include nationalism

I've never called cosmopolitanism "degenerate" or "evil," it's just silly. I also didn't "invent" Marxian left-wing nationalism, as you well know—it has existed for over a century. I have merely further developed it in a forthcoming paper, because, over the past 50 years, few socialists have taken the initiative to do so (primarily due to the aforementioned cosmopolitan hegemony on the national question that has emerged).

Which as I have just explained with an already stated point, when you alluded to the Marx/Bauer ‘Jewish question’ that the sole purpose should be to destroy capitalism – this negates any nationalism, and the Nationalist State based concept – that a state must stand to ensure the existence of the people.

Karl Marx and Otto Bauer were of the opinion that the Jews didn't constitute a nation because they were in the process of full assimilation with their European host populations. The former held that their assimilation would only be completed following the abolition of capitalism, while the latter believed it would occur during the bourgeois epoch. Both of them clearly underestimated the endurance of Jewish national identity, and I disagree with their refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people as a distinct nation.

Here you admit that Marxism is antithetical to what we understand as nationalism, and what has only ever been nationalism now and ever more.

I've admitted that left-wing nationalism is antithetical to what fascists consider nationalism from the outset of our exchange, so it shouldn't be such a revelation to you.

Romantic nationalism has been the dominant form of nationalism historically. 'Blut und Boden' was unique to 19th and 20th century Germany, and it most certainly does not represent nationalism proper.

You are a weak Marxist, though you do not really care for nationalism, you deny the essence of Marxism.

The "essence of Marxism" is the materialist dialectic and class analysis. An acceptance of nationalism does not interfere with one being able to employ Marx's method because it doesn't negate the primacy of materialism and class struggle in the shaping of history. National consciousness is easily incorporated into the broader analytical framework of Marxism, as Otto Bauer demonstrated.

The people’s will needs to attach itself to a solid principle so it knows where it is going. That is the true meaning of the people’s will. Who determines the will of the people in Marxist society? ‘Intellectuals’.

Ignoring your misuse of the term 'Marxist' (a society cannot be a method of analysis), in communism the people determine their will collectively. They may consult the opinions of intellectuals, but they will ultimately decide their own fate. If a society has indeed achieved communism, then the principles they espouse must necessarily consist of mutual aid, equity, and self-management. Insofar as nationality is concerned, the following passage summarizes my thoughts on the matter well:

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

If as you say, having the people behind you is how you prove yourself then the champions of Marxism are surely the revleft users or whoever is behind the occupy movement, student socialist groups, hipsters etc. They have gained their authority by being more principled Marxist fanatics than you.

The Occupy "movement" was founded by anarchists and quickly deteriorated into a series of social democratic student protests. Marxists judge the value of socialist and communist movements exclusively on the basis of whether they succeed or fail in organizing a proletarian mass movement. By this standard, cosmopolitan socialists have been failing for decades. A return to class-based politics, mutual aid societies, industrial unionism, direct action, and a sensible approach to the national question are required for the Left to become relevant again. We intend to contribute to that effort.

This forum is a farce and all you have achieved with this discussion is a monument to why you are all a complete waste of time. None of you know what an argument is and you debate like special ed students

Ironically, this reads as an objective analysis of Iron March and your performance in this debate thus far, so thank you for saving me the trouble of having to write it out.

Should you decide to respond, be sure to avoid writing as if you're grading a paper (e.g. "FAIL"), because I will not tolerate such arrogant nonsense again. You'll have wasted your time if you do so, because I will delete the post.

by kikehunt Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:35 pm

>evil fascist forum
>has more free thought than socialist phalanx
>this is something they consider 'inconsistency'

exhibits a;

poses a moral question. We know who Dawkins is, his quote is an example of utilitarian logic; morality subsumes itself and the ends justify the means. He uses utilitarian logic to justify communism, we use it to justify fascism, but we also awknowledge it is not a wholistic worldview.

exhibits b;

an example of real politik. Does not matter if it comes from Lenin or Rosseau; it is relevant to what we are doing

exhibit c;

Stalin simply put it well. His quote talks about delusions of 'activists' who's idea of activism is hanging out on an internet forum.

All of these things simply go to show that we don't have a prejudice based on ideology, and that we can accept a credible and well informed statement from opponents or counter-parts. That you can't force yourself to do so is an object of YOUR inconsistency with reality and common sense, not ours in politics.

exhibits d and e are both personal attacks but I will adress them nonetheless.

exhibit d;

Alex actually admits that the revolutions of 1917 were done mostly by Jews. He thinks of Stalin as the man that brought it into line, on some level he is right about this because Stalin did get rid of a lot of scheming kikes, but I still think of him as an opportunistic despot, a swindler of the state and not a rightful ruler, that at the same time is responsible for the deaths of millions in his folly.
before making personal attacks you should actually research what your opponents believe in
htt p:/ /ironmarch.o rg/index.php?/topic/83-stalin-and-russia/
htt p:/ /ironmarch.o rg/index.php?/topic/612-joseph-stalin/

exhibit e;

Alex 1 wrote a book 2 has a personal site with quite a few essays slavros.org 3 has started a movement and has a dozen or so followers, a matter of organizing large-scale activities is something considerably more difficult, especially from the grass-roots up, which I wonder if you have ever attempted.

Ben's accusation was to question your committment to nationalism, which is entirely nonexistent based on your comments regarding blood and soil, or racial nationalism. He did not mean that you were inactive, because this is already self-evident, and has little place in an ideological debate, and more of the nature of personal shit-throwing. You have no right to attack here though; where the hell is the inconsistency? Even if alex was some sort of internet nerd, which I can assure he is not, he is just Ben's friend; Ben has his own party, their activities are fairly official, and known well enough for you to have already researched them. You cannot expect a forum of some few hundred people to all be leaders of their own unique movement, too many chiefs and too few indians and so on. We have quite a few servicemen and university students, all of these people are engaged politically to the best of their abilities, and usually this will be far more than any of you have done. You are really shooting yourself in the foot with this whole thing given that you and your people jump around the issues and avoid any real debate for 15 pages.
I swear I still can't stop laughing. this whole 'we are in between, we are like, pro-nation without the evilness and really nice, pro-gay and progressive on the inside! trust me!' has got so fucking old you may as well bury it next to Marx.

by **Rev Scare** Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:05 pm

Go fuck yourself, kikehunt.

by **Celtiberian** Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:55 am

kikehunt wrote:Here is where you are a hypocrite; that would never happen on iron march.

I'm a "hypocrite" for being unaware of Iron March's forum policies?

Point being, you took it away to make me look bad, not because you were dissatisfied with the content.

Believe me, keeping it would have made you look far worse. I already described why I deleted it and have nothing further to add.

Also, implying my account wasn't banned after three posts.

Your account was banned because the screen name you chose violated our guidelines. It's that simple.

You call it a myth but you never factually disproved it. You simply call it so, and whine or bitch whenever contradicted on this. The most evidence you have actually given is "i've been on campus, I would know" which is a completely redundant claim to authority. We don't need to school you in common sense.

Excuse me, but you and Guest777 are the ones asserting the conspiracy exists, so the burden of proof is on you to provide supporting evidence. Thus far, you two have only cited a few communist directors and screen writers active in Hollywood from the '40s and '50s, a Che Guevara billboard, and the social movements of the 20th century. At no point was a direct link between the Frankfurt school and policymakers demonstrated, and I provided you with a far more credible material explanation for why the cultural changes experienced in recent decades occurred.

I would say you are the one with the straw man/ ebul fascists BAAAAAAAAW

What straw man have I committed about your political philosophy?

I find marxist class theory a waste of my time. I still read it, at least for kicks.

Your comprehension skills must be severely lacking, in that case. You have exhibited absolutely no understanding of even the most elementary Marxist concepts.

Yeah, right, except where does this attitude go when we talk about evil fascists in Germany? "NO GERMANY HAD ECONOMIC SUCCESS BECAUSE THEY WERE EVIL AND THEY STOLE JEWISH CLAY"

The economic success of the Third Reich is no more impressive than that of the New Deal. Both the United States and Germany owed their economic recoveries to the use military Keynesianism in conjunction with the mass destruction of capital, which undoubtedly works but at an unacceptable cost. The Bretton Woods system established the conditions for Western Europe and North America to prosper in the post-war era, but it too was unsustainable. Capitalism's internal contradictions inevitably generate economic crises, and fascism is incapable of mitigating that cycle, let alone ending it.

No thanks mate. You specifically dull your criticisms of the soviet power because they are your people, you qualm with Nazi Germany therefore cannot be its actual means

If you knew anything about revolutionary syndicalism, you would understand why it's beyond absurd to claim the Soviets as 'my people.' Means and ends matter to me. Both regimes practiced indefensible methods of social control, but I will concede that the end the Soviet's professed to support is far closer to my own than that of the fascists.

From the fact that you deliberately force a calm acceptance of Bolshevik MURDER, when anything along those lines coming from German National Socialists, you would scream at and baww all over. Get my drift?

I accept revolutionary violence as unavoidable. What I do not excuse are concentration camps, gulags, and the like.

That is because you are a historical illiterate; you know tomes written by trotscum which talk about perennial class theory, the problem is that you take their word on it, and actually believe this is how history played out.

Just as I do with economics, I read a diverse array of perspectives on historical subjects. I happen to find material analyses the most persuasive, but I hardly take an uncritical approach to the study of history. What I find so humorous about your criticism, however, is that the only quotes you have used during our debate have been from articles literally written by propagandists (e.g., Goebbels) or books by conspiracy theorists. The irony must not faze you.

The admirable revolutionary hero Nestor Makhno murdered more jews than Simon Petlyura and general Denikin combined together, around the time they were pillaging the Ukrainian countryside.

What a balanced approach to the life of Nestor Makhno.. What peer-reviewed academic journal did you derive that information from?

killing father stephen for forcing girlie to wear a dress is A-OKAY.

Yeah, the Communards only murdered Catholic clergy because priests forced their daughters to wear dresses.. Rolling Eyes

Again, the word is COWARDICE, because you refuse to acknowledge the nature of your OWN ideas, and REFUSE any information that is contradictory to your worldview.

I have repeatedly stated that I'm not opposed to necessary revolutionary violence, and I'm still waiting for you to present the information that allegedly 'contradicts' my political and economic philosophy.

You will go so far as to deny it is a worldview and call it a mere 'method of analysis.'

Marxism is the method of analysis I practice and communism is my Weltanschauung. (A complete world view requires a theory of nature and ethical commitments, both of which are beyond the scope of Marxism.) Is it 'cowardly' or evasive to ask that terms be used in an appropriate manner?

You see my friend though, methods of analysis do not line up innocent people by the wall and execute by firing squad.

That is precisely what I've been attempting to explain to you for pages.

Fascists awknowledge this, and that is why we do not call ourselves a 'method of analysis;'

Of course you don't. But fascists do have their own method(s) of analysis, they're called: idealism and/or biological reductionism—it varies according to the specific tendency of fascism one follows.

You anarchist commune never happened to produce anything than 'favorable working conditions' for a few months, which you have already admitted also exist under fascism and capitalism.

They produced far more than "favorable working conditions." They eliminated the dictatorship of capital and exploitative bourgeois social relations, and, in addition to establishing workers' self-management, were in the process of developing a genuinely democratic method of political governance.

Your anarchist communes though are ENTIRELY responsible for being ass-stupid, contradicting reality, stepping on everyone's feet, and then getting the appropriate dick in the face.

Another sophisticated, nuanced analysis. To what do we owe the pleasure of these genius insights?

(It's fascinating how so many self-identified 'Aryans' would qualify as Untermenschen, were cognitive ability the sole measurement of one's worth.)

>ordinary workers
>they are just overpayed
>more pay is good because it is for the workers

They aren't "overpaid," at least in this country. As I said, they are frequently paid less than their private sector counterparts. And it's not an issue of "more pay" being good, it's a question of what is an equitable basis for remuneration. As a communist, I'm of the view that only effort, duration, and sacrifice should be determining factors.

Oswald Spengler wrote:Marx succeeded in preaching contempt for work. Perhaps he did not realize this himself. Work—long, hard, tiring work—is for him a misfortune, and effortless gain a blessing.

Spengler was either grossly misinformed or deliberately lying. In his philosophical writings, Marx contends that labor is a misfortune under capitalism because workers are exploited and degraded, and mankind is alienated from its Gattungswesen. It was his view that, by eliminating the exploitation of man by man and transcending generalized commodity production, communism would transform work from a mere "means of life" to "life's prime want."

The concepts "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" reflect the typically English preference for business rather than manual work. The former is a blessing, the latter a calamity; the one is noble, the other base.

What this has to do with Marx is anyone's guess. Marx used the terms 'bourgeois' and 'proletarian' to describe one's relationship to the means of production, thereby determining their class position. He definitely didn't consider being a capitalist a "blessing"—capitalists, though not exploited, are nevertheless alienated and subservient to the law of value—but he did regard the status of proletarians as being unjust (unlike fascists, who wish to indoctrinate workers into being proud of their chains).

kikehunt wrote:it goes well with your advocacy of the shameless scum that earn 150,000 a year but still strike twice every four months.

Which public sector workers would those be? (Your visceral hatred of workers with a sense of class consciousness is duly noted, by the way.)

If I will, I'll be holding a weapon. Far more likely you though, i've you've read the protocols, and know anything about the pervasiveness of cultural marxism.

Can't you see there is no such a thing as real 'democracy' based on enlightenment values?

Not yet.

Real democracy can only exist under stable, hierarchical social conditions, like in Greece, Rome, older England, or the Novgorod Republic, which are not interrupted by class struggle from either side.

What you're citing as examples of "real democracy" are systems which were still dominated by class interests, and they certainly didn't follow the democratic principle of allowing individuals to possess the right to participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by the outcomes. Hierarchy is antithetical to democracy.

Organic society had this, fascism will soon restore it.

When I think of fascism, democracy is always the first thing that comes to mind!

"He considered the Rvolution a victroy for the Jews, which opinion, he said, prevailed on the East Side where rejoicing knew no bounds. We felt, added Mr. Cahan, that this is a great triumph for the Jews' cause. The anti-Jewish element in Russia has always been identified with the anti-revolutionary party. Jews having always sat high in the Councils of the revolutionists, all of our race became inseparably linked with the opponents of the government in the official mind." (New York Call, March 17, 1917, Upheaval in Russia Is Fight for Liberty, Abraham Cahan).

A quote which I have only traced to one book, Boris Brasol's The World at the Cross Roads. He was an antisemitic Russian counterrevolutionary, who also authored such illuminating works as Socialism vs. Civilization. An unbiased source, if ever there was one..

"...It was in England, the home of the Jews, says Mr. Pitt-Rivers, that the Tsar's Government was always systematically vilified, for years made out as the blackest home of tyranny and oppression in the world. although there were English writers like Mr. Stephen Graham who, years ago, went out to Russia to live there because he considered it the freest country in Europe. It was, of course, the least commercialized, while England, one of the most commerciaized countries; and the greatest loverrs and entertainers of Jews, in the world, in consequence, sees no merit in a simple agricultural existence. Neither is it surprising in view of her cult of unlimited industrialism, and its consequences; an ever expanding industrial and urban population, free commercial exploitation by all and sundry middlemen, usurers, Jews; and the translations of all values into money-values, by which alone can be realized that ideal of personal equality, dad-levelness and compulsory mediocrity in which she glories under the name of Liberalism and Democracy. Can England with her tradition of three hundred years of Jeww-loving free-mammonism, democratic-shopkeeping, Puritanism, and obsessional urban-industrial expansion, in any case understand the healthier ideal of rural simplicity and paternal government, which, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of his successor, was the ideal of Alexander III." (George Pitt-Rivers, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, with preface by Dr. Oscar Levy, pp. 20-21, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1920).

Another quote found only in Brasol's book.

"If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands." -- Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book "International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World" (1931)

"The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a 'League of Nations' or a 'Federated Union' to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the 'New International Order,' 'The New World Order,' 'World Union Now,' 'World Commonwealth of Nations,' 'World Community,' etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual." -- excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940)

In what way are these quotes relevant to what we've been discussing?

"America: Submerged in a Sea of Zionism. Will history remember America merely as a major captive nation of Zionist world conquest, ignoring the lustrous ascendance and near triumph of the glorious potential of free man? Will Zionist scorched-earth shots to the heart of all that is wholesome buy them their long-sought victory for Babylonian humanism with its showy irreverence and the glorification of all that is sordid? Will all of the goodness, wholesomeness and productivity of our unique Christian Republic, which millions forfeited their lives to give us, be purged from the world, leaving man to enter the 21st century enslaved to the least of God's creations? Must Americans forever witness Zionist self-promotion and self-portrayal as our best and brightest, as our most deserving and selfless citizens suffering a society of lesser humans with intellectually inferior pursuits? Will God allow animal cunning, arrogance, greed and self-aggrandizement a final victory over humanity? (Ameirch Focus, Commentaries on America).

This is literally only featured on Stormfront, which is where I suggest you go if you want to continue to indulge in your paranoid Jewish conspiracy theories.

exhibits a;

poses a moral question. We know who Dawkins is, his quote is an example of utilitarian logic; morality subsumes itself and the ends justify the means. He uses utilitarian logic to justify communism, we use it to justify fascism, but we also awknowledge it is not a wholistic worldview.

You clearly haven't any idea what you're taking about. Guest777 and I recently had a debate about Dawkins's friend, Peter Singer, and his utilitarian ethics. To recapitulate, utilitarianism is a moral philosophy which endorses behaviors and policies which result in "the greatest happiness for the greatest number." Means are crucial because only those which harm people the least, while achieving the best possible outcome, are favored. Hence, your attempt to portray utilitarianism as a form of Machiavellianism is patently absurd. It also cannot be applied to fascism because it's an inherently universal ethic. Since fascism intentionally disregards the plight of foreign peoples, only morals consistent with an extreme form of ethical particularism can be adopted. Finally, utilitarianism is a philosophy which descends from liberalism, and it is far too laissez-faire for a traditionalist to follow.

exhibits b;

an example of real politik. Does not matter if it comes from Lenin or Rosseau; it is relevant to what we are doing

That's irrelevant to the point I was making. I was merely highlighting how inane it is for a fascist forum to prominently display the image and quotes (taken out of context, of course) of their ideological enemies.

All of these things simply go to show that we don't have a prejudice based on ideology, and that we can accept a credible and well informed statement from opponents or counter-parts. That you can't force yourself to do so is an object of YOUR inconsistency with reality and common sense, not ours in politics.

I'm fully capable of acknowledging truth regardless of the source it derives from. However, I wouldn't add quotes from individuals whose political and/or economic philosophies were the polar opposite of those promoted by my website. (That is likely the chief reason why there is so much ideological heterogeneity on Iron March.)

before making personal attacks you should actually research what your opponents believe in

I'm well aware of Slavros's terribly misguided views of Stalin.

Alex 1 wrote a book 2 has a personal site with quite a few essays slavros.org 3 has started a movement and has a dozen or so followers, a matter of organizing large-scale activities is something considerably more difficult, especially from the grass-roots up, which I wonder if you have ever attempted.

His essays are dreadful enough, an entire book would be utterly insufferable. I pity whatever poor, unsuspecting people get lured into reading that garbage. Oh, and playing dress-up in the woods with your friends doesn't qualify as a "movement."

With that said, your incessant spamming has forced the moderator staff to temporarily lock the thread. Congratulations. If any other Iron March member wishes to post a response, they'll have to message me and request that I unlock it for them.

by Sponsored content