Re: Iron March Forum

[GF]

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/1290-stalinism-red-fascism/page__p__32700#entry32700

..Yet another reason why I firmly believe that Iron March is one of the most ideologically incoherent assemblies of individuals on the net. How can the members there honestly call themselves fascists with straight faces when they 'adopt' the belief systems of Stalin and Lenin (who are showcased on the site but probably misinterpreted by the majority of them)? Some of the persons on there sound a lot more like socialists than fascists.

Even the clown of their league (FascistCapitalist) has to teach them essential fascistic economy in these embarrassing threads:

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/1289-when-fascism-was-still-on-the-left/page__p__32606#entry32606

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/1285-in-what-sense-is-corporatism-socialist/page__p__32414#entry32414

Indeed. It's hard to believe that I can take FascistCapitalist more seriously than I can the rest of them.

[Celtiberian]

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/1290-stalinism-red-fascism/page__p__32700#entry32700

..Yet another reason why I firmly believe that Iron March is one of the most ideologically incoherent assemblies of individuals on the net. How can the members there honestly call themselves fascists with straight faces when they 'adopt' the belief systems of Stalin and Lenin (who are showcased on the site but probably misinterpreted by the majority of them)? Some of the persons on there sound a lot more like socialists than fascists.

Even the clown of their league (FascistCapitalist) has to teach them essential fascistic economy in these embarrassing threads:

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/1289-when-fascism-was-still-on-the-left/page__p__32606#entry32606

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/1285-in-what-sense-is-corporatism-socialist/page__p__32414#entry32414

Most of the members of that cesspool haven't the faintest idea what they believe in. They're so ideologically confused that pity is perhaps the most reasonable response. For example, it's clear that their member William has concocted his own narrative of fascist theory which has no basis in reality. While he correctly draws attention to the fact that both Karl Marx and Giovanni Gentile were influenced by Hegel, he overemphasizes its relevance. Gentile's philosophy, so-called 'Actual Idealism,' belonged to the Hegelian Right, and its application to political matters was derived from Hegel's theory of the modern state found in Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Marx, on the other hand, was a Left Hegelian who eventually "stood Hegel on his head" by incorporating Feuerbachian materialism into his dialectical method. To understand how insignificant sharing a broadly Hegelian foundation can be, one need only look to Francis Fukuyama, who also descends from the Hegelian philosophical tradition, but whose dialectical reasoning leads him to a vindication of liberal democratic capitalism.

I'm also perplexed by William's contention that, "[t]he corporatists ultimately wanted an egalitarian workforce, with the syndicalism (the end result of a fascist state) calling for the complete dissolution of managerial oversight and a workforce comprised of individuals working together towards the benefit of the State without being manipulated or controlled by non-workers with little influence in the actual work process aside from managerial duties." There is no justification for this view whatsoever. Even those who subscribe to the theory of "revolutionary fascism" (recently resurrected by Erik Norling) concede that Mussolini abandoned socialism and syndicalism following the First World War, just as many other Italian syndicalists-turned-fascist (e.g., Angelo Olivetti, Paolo Orano, and Sergio Panunzio) had. As A. James Gregor explains, after Mussolini returned from the war, he was prepared to appeal to a political constituency far wider than the proletariat:

"The first reality would draw together all those sharing a common sentiment—and that would provide the emotional sustenance for the disciplined hierarchy required for technologically proficient and expanded production. Animated by shared national sentiments, soldiers and producers, workers and the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie, would 'fuse' in creative and constructive enterprise.

All of that was to be held together by a doctrine Mussolini early identified as 'national syndicalism,' a doctrine the elements of which had made their appearance in the years leading up to the Great War. . . . The central feature of national syndicalism was an explicit appeal to a sentiment of national belonging that its theoreticians believed would engage, in principle, the immediate commitment of all Italians of whatever economic class. Nationalism was to become the enduring imperative, the 'myth,' of the system of appeals."
A. James Gregor, Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism: Chapters in the Intellectual History of Radicalism (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2008), p. 274 (bold emphasis added).

As for the aforementioned syndicalists who joined with Mussolini following the war, they came to fascism via a slightly different route. Some of them genuinely did believe in utilizing corporativism as a method to develop Italy's forces of production, thereafter transitioning to syndicalism. However, these "national syndicalists," as they came to call themselves, soon rejected any such transition. In other words, for the national syndicalists (or, more appropriately, corporativists), the experiences of the First World War represented not only a conceptual break with Marxism as a sociological theory of revolution, but with economic syndicalism per se. David Roberts describes how this process began quite well when he notes that, "[g]radually, however, the syndicalists' accents shifted, and they began to portray their neosyndicalist program not as a mere preliminary, but as an alternative to the Marxist revolution, a program relevant both to longstanding Italian problems and to the more universal problems of the European liberal order." Among other absurdities, this led to the national syndicalists' denunciation of the Italian workers' uprising following the war:

"The end of the war led to the biennio rosso and the threat of socialist revolution. In response, the syndicalists finally began cutting themselves off from the old orthodoxy for good, condemning the working class, declaring the class struggle to be counterproductive, and calling for collaboration between the workers and productive sectors of the bourgeoisie. Although some of them had begun to contemplate a nonproeltarian preliminary revolution before the war, it was the biennio rosso which finally led the syndicalists explicitly to repudiate the orthodox revolution and to determine more precisely what an alternative revolution would have to involve. It would be a national, populist, political revolution, one with no special role for the proletariat."
David D. Roberts, The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), pp. 154-155 (bold emphasis added).

These former syndicalists' sole concern now was developing Italy's productive forces in order to assert the nation's hegemony in geopolitical affairs. So, in addition to condemning the biennio rosso for failing to appreciate their fascistic political objectives, they also denounced the 'undisciplined' factory occupations which workers had been conducting, because, in their opinion, 'efficient' production fundamentally required "hierarchical differentiation" [Roberts, Op. cit., p. 156]—illustrating just how far from the syndicalist tradition they had wavered, and how inaccurate William's suggestion that the corporativists desired an "egalitarian workforce" is. Capital was no longer the enemy of the working class in their eyes, it was now "unproductive" financial speculation and liberalism. Unlike the '"parasitical" politicians of the liberal parliamentary system, according to Angelo Olivetti, "the economic classes are a logical and natural reality" [Roberts, Op. cit., pp. 160-161 (emphasis added)]. Thus the proletariat and bourgeoisie were not to be thought of as antagonistic classes, destined to compete with one another over the social product for the duration of class society, because both classes were considered valuable "producers," natural and indispensable to society, and sharing common 'national interests.' As such, "[a]ll producers would be obligatory members in one of ten corporations, which would organize each of the productive categories comprising society." This new state was therefore to be "a unified, homogenous community" [Roberts, Op. cit., p. 180]—though we Marxian syndicalists would hardly consider a society which retains classes to be "unified" in any meaningful sense. To Mussolini, this corporativist doctrine was nothing less than a "socialism focused on 'the nation and the productive classes'"; a "new and disciplined socialism" [Gregor, Op. cit., p. 282]. But just as the National Socialists in Germany would do years later, the fascists succeeded only in evacuating the terms 'syndicalism' and 'socialism' of their meaning, in this dishonorable Machiavellian scheme to appeal to the working class. (The capitalist qua capitalist is definitely not a "producer," as every syndicalist should know. They perform the wholly passive function of providing their capital to be utilized in the process of production, a function which could easily be provided by society itself.)

It must be mentioned, however, that the relatively minor portion of syndicalists who came to embrace fascism were almost exclusively petit-bourgeois intellectuals who had become syndicalists only for idealistic purposes; Carl Levy's (2000) essay on the “Currents of Italian Syndicalism Before 1926” (International Review of Social History, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 209–250) is quite clear on this point. Very few of the proletarians involved in the syndicalist movement followed these individuals into the National Fascist Party.

And lest people should think that the Italian Social Republic's adoption of Nicola Bombacci's program of socialization (drafted into the 1943 Charter of Verona) somehow attests to William's ludicrous 'corporativism to syndicalism' theory being accurate, bear in mind that Mussolini was a defeated man by that time. No longer capable of currying favor with the bourgeoisie or aristocracy to aggrandize himself, he needed to make concessions to the highly socialistic working classes of Northern Italy. The actual amount of companies which were socialized by the regime were trivial (less than a dozen), and the Germans—who were the de facto governors of the Social Republic—likely would have prohibited it from being carried further regardless. Nevertheless, the program of socialization being incorporated into the charter can be interpreted in basically one of three ways: (1) mere opportunism, (2) Mussolini possessing residual socialist sentiments which were coincidentally reemerging at that time, or (3) some combination of 1 and 2. Whatever the case may be (and there is ample speculation in the historical literature), the program of socialization represented a departure from fascist orthodoxy, not a consistent progression thereof.

In closing, there is a rather curious tendency—exemplified by certain members of Iron March—which I've noticed recently, of socially conservative individuals who espouse anti-capitalist economic philosophies attempting to revise the history of fascism in order to shape it into conformity with their own eccentric views. They accomplish this by cherry picking quotations and selecting only those reading materials which serve to validate their indefensible interpretations of texts and events. The same can be applied to the "Red Fascism" phenomenon, wherein a few revisionist historians and National Bolshevik theoreticians allege that Joseph Stalin was not sincere in his internationalist or communist convictions, and can instead be viewed as simply another figure in the long tradition of imperial Russian chauvinism. To see what Stalin himself thought of such characterizations, one should observe the fates which befell the men who were advancing that thesis in his own lifetime, e.g., Nikolai Ustrialov and Konstantin Rodzaevsky.

[guest777]

The above assessment of 'red fascists' is probably the most succinct I have seen for a while, and it is only a shame I had to read it here though it is still basically correct (though most of us have been saying it for years). If I can interject though I think it is unfair to use this to characterise the forum because this kind of cognitive dissonance you describe is really only found in a subset of very naive individuals who are never completely accepted by the group, only tolerated, and many (including some cited) leave. Lack of militant opposition to these notions when they do appear by other members on the forum, and their reason for being in the first place is due to the inherent open mindedness found in a group like fascism which currently lacks the cast iron principles it had. Its takes its own commitment to forms of social justice, Anti-capitalism, monetary reform, Identification with workers, revolutionary methods, producers in society over parasites, etcetera, and makes a superficial judgement that there is compatibility and not diametrically opposed viewpoints. Exceptions are those from countries where the hard left has a historical part in the civic life of the people, in which case it falls under the wider state objectifying and upholding of law and order dilemma fascists have. The reference to the banner with Lenin and Stalin (also Shaw and Dawkins) focuses on method and ideas rather than actual patron saints - and are not taken out of context, though the context instead is not to be taken literally.

Returning to the subject of Iron March, I have personally done everything in my power to correct these misconceptions and all things considered, it has left IM as a fortress of sanity by comparison. Those who are using sites like Stormfront to compare don't know that the vast majority of its user base are all in the autumn years of life, while Iron March are virtually all in their early twenties. You should see what passes as fascism today is what you describe and we have done very well to resist it. A very current example is a text like Dugin's 'fourth political theory', which charges that soviet communism and Chavez Venezuela is national bolshevism - which is all part of the new 'fourth political theory' beyond communism and fascism as a best of both, as a kind of distributive ethno separatism allied to other traditionalist anti-liberal forces like Radical Islam. That is in no way an exaggerated assessment, it is the central argument of the book. Take also Troy Southgates national anarchist manifesto whose stated aim is to reclaim green politics, anti-capitalism, decentralisation, alternative education, anarchism, etc from the left, among other things. It is on the internet look it up. These are both ‘intellectual’ works, and what counts as fashionable today – it is a sign of the times so don’t be surprised if you see it in places, but it is of no significance and will only be a passing trend when it is thoroughly put to rest.


An Iron March user.

[Confusion]

Can a forum filled with Breivik-supporters be considered a fortress of sanity?

Breivik

Breivik 2

[Red Aegis]

Can a forum filled with Breivik-supporters be considered a fortress of sanity?

Breivik

Breivik 2

Well said. I cannot be a fan of a forum with Hitler quotes everywhere.

[Confusion]

Since Stormfront is the competitor to Iron March (If one can say so, they are bigger and have a have a better looking forum) I did a little search over there, and it seems to me like they are actually less positive about Breivik than the Iron March:

Stormfront on Breivik

Stormfront on Breivik 2

In the future, Iron March will probably degenerate into a B-version of Stormfront, a hangout for StormFront-rejects

[Guest777]

Can a forum filled with Breivik-supporters be considered a fortress of sanity? Since Stormfront is the competitor to Iron March (If one can say so, they are bigger and have a have a better looking forum) I did a little search over there, and it seems to me like they are actually less positive about Breivik than the Iron March:
In the future, Iron March will probably degenerate into a B-version of Stormfront, a hangout for StormFront-rejects

What utter tripe - you mistake us for a reject forum like you *Ahem - revleft*- a stormfront equivilant to that is new saxon, democracy forum, etc. Its membership is 40 years+ there are simply no young people and we never mix in the same circles with new right as a buffer betweent he two. The fact they reacted differently to Breivik is indicative that the two are different breeds of animal. Stormfront are goat dancing movement kooks obsessed only with conspiracy theories and jews - hence why they all agreed with david dukes video 'zionist terrorism in norway', that mourned the murder of anti war europeans by a masonic jew inspired isreali agent. Utterly pathetic.

Both the threads you linked were flawed
Breivik is Conducting a Massive Letter Writing Campaign to Found a Conservative Revolutionary Movement
this would have been my first choice as an actual debate came out of this, the others were joke threads though you can't seem to realise that. Summation; a sense of humour, mabye some measured jubilation, nobody totally agrees with his ideas but he was a man of action who trolled liberals.

You may want to review our forum charter, you may find it instructive (god help you you need III-1)
Iron March Forum Charter

2. This is not Stormfront. Our community is based on discussion and debate constructive towards fascist goals, it is not a hangout for White Nationalists and their unique subculture. Stormfront and VNN forums already provide this in terms of its endless topics on conspiracy theories, chimpouts, Zionism, etcetera. Exclusively posting remarks and threads of that nature without proper context is a form of spamming. If you want to debate legitimate issues specifically from (for example) a white nationalist perspective we suggest you limit it to the Opposing Views section of our forum. The same applies also for other ideologies that are not related to Fascism and oppose the Modern World.

Well said. I cannot be a fan of a forum with Hitler quotes everywhere.

Which is why they are there. It has been long held conviction of mine that most 'left nationalists', hold their position not out of genuine conviction for socialist ideals, but out of fear - specifically of being labeled something mean. Why do you think Strasser is so popular around here, cognitive dissonance - the suitability of such people was being matryed.

[Celtiberian]

What utter tripe - you mistake us for a reject forum like you *Ahem - revleft*

None of the founders of this forum were 'rejects' from RevLeft, so we can be assigned no such label.

Stormfront are goat dancing movement kooks obsessed only with conspiracy theories and jews - hence why they all agreed with david dukes video 'zionist terrorism in norway', that mourned the murder of anti war europeans by a masonic jew inspired isreali agent. Utterly pathetic.

Your assessment of Stormfront is basically correct, but, as the saying goes, 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.' Iron March is far from representing a bastion of rationality and civil discourse. For example, your administration and moderator staff regularly praise many of contemporary history's most deranged figures (e.g., George Lincoln Rockwell and Ante Pavelić), and several of your members propound anti-Semitic and racialist doctrines just as absurd as those found on Stormfront.

Summation; a sense of humour, mabye some measured jubilation, nobody totally agrees with his ideas but he was a man of action who trolled liberals.

Let's not whitewash things. The typical criticism of Breivik's act of domestic terrorism on your forum is that he 'should have picked better targets,' and even that is seldom accepted as a legitimate critique. Don't pretend as if your members don't fundamentally agree with the crux of his ideology and his decision to exterminate the next generation of so-called 'cultural Marxists.'

Which is why they are there.

The fact they're there further reveals that an alarming number of your membership probably belongs to the 1-2% of humanity which qualifies as sociopathic. Not every fan of Hitler is a sociopath, of course—which is why many of his modern admirers go to such great lengths to counter the evidence which displays the brutality of his regime—but, when you couple an admiration for the late Führer with the exaltation of violence and exploitation observable on your forum, it stands to reason that this is evidence of antisocial personality disorder.

It has been long held conviction of mine that most 'left nationalists', hold their position not out of genuine conviction for socialist ideals, but out of fear - specifically of being labeled something mean. Why do you think Strasser is so popular around here, cognitive dissonance - the suitability of such people was being matryed.

Maybe that's applicable to followers of the Third Position, but I assure you that members of the Socialist Phalanx are staunchly committed socialists and communists. We are Marxists, so accusing us of utilizing socialism merely to subterfuge our nationalist convictions is laughable. Furthermore, the left-wing nationalism we follow shares absolutely nothing in common with the reactionary nationalism espoused by the likes of Strasserists, National Bolsheviks, or any other Third or Fourth Positionist creed. In fact, many of the members of this forum which considered themselves Strasserists have either abandoned that ideology or joined your forum.

[Admin]

What utter tripe - you mistake us for a reject forum like you *Ahem - revleft*-

That is an unconscionable comparison to make.

a stormfront equivilant to that is new saxon, democracy forum, etc. Its membership is 40 years+ there are simply no young people and we never mix in the same circles with new right as a buffer betweent he two. The fact they reacted differently to Breivik is indicative that the two are different breeds of animal. Stormfront are goat dancing movement kooks obsessed only with conspiracy theories and jews - hence why they all agreed with david dukes video 'zionist terrorism in norway', that mourned the murder of anti war europeans by a masonic jew inspired isreali agent. Utterly pathetic.

I have no doubt that the general demeanor of Stormfront's membership is far more conservative than that found on your forum. The ideological disposition of the individuals found on both forums, however, is far less dissimilar than you are suggesting. The 'differences' are therefore inconsequential.

For example, virtually all reactionary nationalists agree with Breivik's goals. The only discernible point of fissure that exists amongst that foul demographic are disagreements regarding Breivik's particular methods. The fact that members of Iron March lack the slight degree of humanity demonstrated by some Stormfront members (as well as a few other other racists and reactionary activists) clearly reflects poorly on that forum.

Both the threads you linked were flawed
(website)/index.php?/topic/1232-breivik-is-conducting-a-massive-letter-writing-campaign-to-found-a-conservative-revolutionary-movement
this would have been my first choice as an actual debate came out of this, the others were joke threads though you can't seem to realise that. Summation; a sense of humour, mabye some measured jubilation, nobody totally agrees with his ideas but he was a man of action who trolled liberals.

I wouldn't characterize the mass murder of defenseless youths to be on par with 'trolling' liberals. The fact that anyone would see humor in his actions disgusts me.

You may want to review our forum charter, you may find it instructive (god help you you need III-1)
(website)/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

If you were hoping that referring this forum's membership to your forum's 'charter' would improve anyone's opinion of it, expect to be disappointed. Labeling your moderating staff the "Black Corps" — who are officially defined as the "Order of Knights of the Iron March forum" — is hilariously pitiful and referring to avatars as "uniforms" stinks of the sort of mindless superfluity that one would naturally expect from a neo-fascist forum.

2. This is not Stormfront. Our community is based on discussion and debate constructive towards fascist goals, it is not a hangout for White Nationalists and their unique subculture.

That is a highly misleading statement. Your forum lacks the sort of ideological homogeneity or commitment to activism that you suggest it possesses.

The primary distinction that one could draw between Iron March and Stormfront is that the brand of reaction the former peddles has more of the classic revolutionary pretenses that were once observable on the European far-right. I assume the reason for this is because Iron March was founded by fascist ideologues, as opposed to the sort of (racist) American conservatives that created Stormfront. That fact, however, does little to influence the general constitution of your forum's membership — which is as xenophobic, jingoistic, and anti-social as anything found on Stormfront. In other words, both forums are inundated with individuals that suffer from a similar form of false consciousness.

Stormfront and VNN forums already provide this in terms of its endless topics on conspiracy theories, chimpouts, Zionism, etcetera. Exclusively posting remarks and threads of that nature without proper context is a form of spamming. If you want to debate legitimate issues specifically from (for example) a white nationalist perspective we suggest you limit it to the Opposing Views section of our forum. The same applies also for other ideologies that are not related to Fascism and oppose the Modern World.

I doubt our members have any interest in engaging the reactionaries on your forum. I, for one, have absolutely no interest in wasting anymore time on that forum than I already have. Your members, however, are welcome to stimulate their minds by debating the socialists here.

Which is why they are there. It has been long held conviction of mine that most 'left nationalists', hold their position not out of genuine conviction for socialist ideals, but out of fear - specifically of being labeled something mean. Why do you think Strasser is so popular around here, cognitive dissonance - the suitability of such people was being matryed.

To argue that Strasserism (or any other derivative of the so-called Third Position) is consistent with the principles endorsed here is so fallacious that I am almost inclined to believe that you are being disingenuous. However, I will be generous and assume that your inept attempt at psychoanalyzing left-wing nationalists is rooted in your glaring ignorance regarding what left-wing nationalism actually is. Therefore, I invite you to consult the forum's FAQ section and browse through the numerous threads regarding the subject of left-wing nationalism, in order to help dispel whatever erroneous notions you may have.

[Admin]

In fact, many the members of this forum which considered themselves Strasserists have either abandoned that ideology or joined your forum.

Indeed. I suppose IronMarch serves a valuable function after all. Who else would be willing to embrace the muddleheaded refuse of our OV section?

[Confusion]

Wow! I dig up some very bad stuff in order to keep this superb thread alive - and guest777 finds something even worse in an attempt at DEFENDING!!! the Iron March.

/The depts of depravity (One of the forum admins thinking about sending fan-mail to Breivik, and the others approving it)

Wow! Just Wow! Those white-pride people on Stormfront seem very nice and moderate all of a sudden.

As a Iron March participant, it is actually shameful that you (guest777) mocks them. You are mocking your ideological partners, even if they are a bit more moderate than your self. "old men" and stuff, not prepared to go bat-shit insane.

I hope the police is looking at that place too.

[Guest777]

I thank you for your invite to participate in your forum, I guess I had to make an account here to continue but I am probably going to be in breach of a whole bunch of your rules if I join and will be after this post. I only continue as it is raised by an admin. I hope you don’t mind if I address both posters collectively.

None of the founders of this forum were 'rejects' from RevLeft, so we can be assigned no such label.

Perhaps I am ignorant, or maybe not. I was under the impression that this was exactly what this place was. I saw it listed a while ago as being a ‘free speech version of revleft’ along the lines of revleft 2. Your members seem to not like revleft because it does to you what you do to strasserites (do you see a food chain with consistency at the top?)
>2012
>not checking your cisgender white privilege at the door.
>What next? ‘progressive nationalism’? Oh I am sure that Revleft would be totally understanding of this.
I guess there are differences. you have to allow for the fact that the popular expression of these opposing ideas are different - namely that your average revleft user does not maintain his convictions after the age of 20, whilst stormfront membership entails a lifetime commitment, which you might as well take advantage of after forever risking career, friends, and family.

Your assessment of Stormfront is basically correct, but, as the saying goes, 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.' Iron March is far from representing a bastion of rationality and civil discourse. For example, your administration and moderator staff regularly praise many of contemporary history's most deranged figures (e.g., George Lincoln Rockwell and Ante Pavelić), and several of your members propound anti-Semitic and racialist doctrines just as absurd as those found on Stormfront.

Mabye ‘as absurd’ but there is a clear distinction even there which needs to be made. Maybe this will become clearer.

I have no doubt that the general demeanor of Stormfront's membership is far more conservative than that found on your forum. The ideological disposition of the individuals found on both forums, however, is far less dissimilar than you are suggesting. The 'differences' are therefore inconsequential.

For example, virtually all reactionary nationalists agree with Breivik's goals. The only discernible point of fissure that exists amongst that foul demographic are disagreements regarding Breivik's particular methods. The fact that members of Iron March lack the slight degree of humanity demonstrated by some Stormfront members (as well as a few other other racists and reactionary activists) clearly reflects poorly on that forum.

Do they? – Breivik has been almost universally slandered and rejected by nationalist groups. A modern nationalist political party is a pseudo civil rights organisation – it wants to get on the gravy train the way that minority community leaders are able to, they are trying to be liberal politicians and playing at liberal politics.They are very PC and totally afraid of being called any mean word; asking a far right politician about the holocaust is a good method the news media have of making him squirm in a way that no good can come out of it. Like Nixon said “I called him a pig fucker… I wanted to see the bastard deny it. ”

However funny thing is you run ‘communist massacre red terror’ allegations to any leftist and they don’t give a shit – put on the spot they will claim it is necessary, because unlike most nationalists they have values which they believe are worth killing for.

If we have an important difference we are not inconsistent. We are not hypocrites, we don’t whitewash history, we accept responsibility for what our values and actions result in, but it doesn’t bother us.

So I guess in conclusion stormfront lives on its narratives, and we simply don’t share these, so we have nothing in common.

I wouldn't characterize the mass murder of defenseless youths to be on par with 'trolling' liberals. The fact that anyone would see humor in his actions disgusts me.

/watch?v=FzpcmHUE_G8
Yes defenceless youths like:
Trond Berntsen, 51
Tore Eikeland, 21
Kai Hauge, 33
Gunnar Linakar, 23
Tove Aashill Knutsen, 56
Tamta Lipartelliani, 23
Monda Adbinur, 18
Ismail Haji Ahmed, 19
Thomas Margido Antonson, 16
Porntip Ardem, 21
Modupe Ellen Awoyemi, 15
Lene Maria Bergum, 19
Kevin Daae Berland, 51
Torjus Jakobsen Blattmann, 17
Sverre Flate Bjorkavåg, 28
Monica Boesei, 45
Carina Borgund, 18
Asta Sofie Helland Dahl, 16
Sondre Furseth Dale, 17
Monica Iselin Didriksen, 18
Gizem Dogan, 17
Bendik Rosnaes Ellingsen, 18
Andreas Edvardsen, 18
Hanna Endresen, 61
Aleksander Aas Eriksen, 16
Andrine Bakkene Espeland, 16
Hanne Blach Fjalestad, 43
Andreas Dalby Grønnesby, 17
Snorre Haller, 30
Rune Havdal, 43
Guro Vartdal Håvoll, 18
Ingrid Berg Heggelund, 18
Ida Marie Hill, 34
Anne Lise Holter, 51
Eivind Hovden, 17
Jamil Rafal Mohammad Jamil, 20
Espen Joergensen, 17
Ronja Soetter Johansen, 17
Maria Maagerø Johannesen, 17
Sondre Kjøeren, 17
Syvert Knudsen, 17
Andres Kristiansen, 18
Jon Vegard Lervag, 32
Hanne Ekroll Loevlie, 30
Even Flugstad Malmedal, 18
Tarald Kuven Mjelde, 18
Häkon Ødegaard, 17
Diderick Aamodt Olsen, 19
Henrik André Pedersen, 27
Rolf Christopher Johansen Perreau, 25
Karar Mustafa Qasim, 19
Bano Abobakar Rashid, 18
Henrik Rasmussen, 18
Synne Roeyenland, 18
Simon Saebo, 18,
Kjersti Sandberg, 26
Fredrik Lund Schjetne, 18
Lejla Selaci , 17
Silje Stamneshagen, 18
Tina Sukuvara, 18
Havard Vederhus, 21

They were old enough to understand treason.

They got what they deserved.

From trial twitter feed:
#Breivik saw two people at south tip and shot them in head. Then saw small boy, standing there, crying hard. Just standing there.
#Breivik: "And he looked very small, couldn't possibly be 16, and I said 'don't worry, be calm, it'll be alright' "
>he thought 'my mission is over', had no intention of firing on the police because they are not the enemy

Don't pretend as if your members don't fundamentally agree with the crux of his ideology and his decision to exterminate the next generation of so-called 'cultural Marxists.'

Unlike you we do not pretend – we want liberalism exterminated, I am only confused why you don’t.
Either way this is another case of latent hypocrisy. A Marxist disgusted at violence, yet the forum Banner has a man with a rifle. War and revolution glorified everywhere, and is integral part of the theory. I think I already made my point before.

The fact they're there further reveals that an alarming number of your membership probably belongs to the 1-2% of humanity which qualifies as sociopathic. Not every fan of Hitler is a sociopath, of course—which is why many of his modern admirers go to such great lengths to counter the evidence which displays the brutality of his regime—but, when you couple an admiration for the late Führer with the exaltation of violence and exploitation observable on your forum, it stands to reason that this is evidence of antisocial personality disorder.

It is true that only 1-2% of humanity actually believes in anything and has changed the world – so it may be the same, though I doubt it. Rockwell once said ‘between the communists and the Nazis are the TV watchers and the comic book readers’ .

We accept Hitler because he has laid down a model for political struggle that is simply put; timeless, and of the highest value to anyone seeking to succeed in politics. Like I can appreciate and respect the method of the Bolsheviks, the difference between them being that he fought for our values.

You have this theory we are psychopathic, for what? Not whitewashing history – doing what most of the others do seek out surrogates that do not attract the same kind of negativity, why do you think Arktos press publish only Codreanu? Why is there thoughts and perspectives series for him, Ezra Pound, Nietzsche, Strasser ect – But you will never see a Goebbels, Mosley, Himmler.

If you were hoping that referring this forum's membership to your forum's 'charter' would improve anyone's opinion of it, expect to be disappointed. Labeling your moderating staff the "Black Corps" — who are officially defined as the "Order of Knights of the Iron March forum" — is hilariously pitiful and referring to avatars as "uniforms" stinks of the sort of mindless superfluity that one would naturally expect from a neo-fascist forum.

What part of:"Iron March is not a movement" did you miss? Come now, who has his website in red with spinning gifs of stars and sickles and the title of ‘comrade’ plastered on users in video game mock SoViEt text? I don’t call you out on that, because I have a sense of humour, and hope you chose your layout in the same vein.

That is a highly misleading statement. Your forum lacks the sort of ideological homogeneity or commitment to activism that you suggest it possesses.

The primary distinction that one could draw between Iron March and Stormfront is that the brand of reaction the former peddles has more of the classic revolutionary pretenses that were once observable on the European far-right. I assume the reason for this is because Iron March was founded by fascist ideologues, as opposed to the sort of (racist) American conservatives that created Stormfront. That fact, however, does little to influence the general constitution of your forum's membership — which is as xenophobic, jingoistic, and anti-social as anything found on Stormfront. In other words, both forums are inundated with individuals that suffer from a similar form of false consciousness.

So what there is no such thing as fascism? If you had read fascist texts you would not make such a silly statement. You are right in your assessment that most of the good old boys on stormfront are just hard done by life, and don’t have any convictions or drive – which is also the basis of white nationalism which believes it is liberal. Fascism on the other hand is different, and the consistency of its ideology is evidenced by the fact that it can cultivate and be expressed as religious fanaticism, like the communists of last century. This may be difficult to understand if your belief is that man has been moved only by his stomach in the history of dialectical materialism, but to my mind if somebody is willing to hold a faith in higher importance than his own single life, then you would conclude that it was likely something very unambiguous. This perhaps better explains ‘violence’ on the site rather than us being criminally psychopathic. The only people who are inconsistent are those who can't recognise that the negative traits you listed are normal - we don't think we are above that. removing the ego from a political movement is the key to its progress.

Maybe that's applicable to followers of the Third Position, but I assure you that members of the Socialist Phalanx are staunchly committed socialists and communists. We are Marxists, so accusing us of utilizing socialism merely to subterfuge our nationalist convictions is laughable. Furthermore, the left-wing nationalism we follow shares absolutely nothing in common with the reactionary nationalism espoused by the likes of Strasserists, National Bolsheviks, or any other Third or Fourth Positionist creed. In fact, many the members of this forum which considered themselves Strasserists have either abandoned that ideology or joined your forum.

Ok, so you are Strasserism lite – I promise It all looks the same to us. ‘muh progressive nationalism’ – defined only by what it is not, it is not ‘capitalist’ and not ‘reactionary’ , these things you define. These things are also what you have a problem defending. As hypocritical as it sounds I think you are living in the 1930’s: You are Either a Marxist thinking only in theory and closing your eyes to the mainstream currents and events of the past decades, or you are a very cowardly fascist who has built a colossal, and impressive façade of leftism to hide this – either way you are in denial.

I base this on the fact you dismiss ‘fourth political theory’ which is a great feat of façade making.
Needless to say when strasserites come to us they usually get their act together soon enough or they don’t stick around here either.

Wow! I dig up some very bad stuff in order to keep this superb thread alive - and guest777 finds something even worse in an attempt at DEFENDING!!! the Iron March.

/The depts of depravity (One of the forum admins thinking about sending fan-mail to Breivik, and the others approving it)

Wow! Just Wow! Those white-pride people on Stormfront seem very nice and moderate all of a sudden.

As a Iron March participant, it is actually shameful that you (guest777) mocks them. You are mocking your ideological partners, even if they are a bit more moderate than your self. "old men" and stuff, not prepared to go bat-shit insane.

I hope the police is looking at that place too

This is clearly another case where you are unable to distinguish humour. That said I wish I could write to him, I only don't because it would probably get the attention that I don't want and while I am not paranoid, there may be negative consequences. Of course though, I didn't make him, he is an effect driven by the cruelty of circumstance. He seems like a nice kid, if somewhat naieve, and his sanity has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt - this what is called a 'political soldier' somebody who is willing to fight for a political idea, so understanding him is coming closer to understand the Holy Grail of movement activism. I value him because he has shown an energy and determination that may yet be of use to us if we can redpill him.

The nice people on stormfront are faggots who deserve nothing good in their lives. That you prefer craven cowards is indicative of your own integrity. Funny how you are now quick to bring the capitalist system's police into this even though we do nothing illegal - all that revolutionary talk is hot air.

[Red Aegis]

Go crawl in a hole and choke on your own bullshit troll.

[Guest777]

Go crawl in a hole and choke on your own bullshit troll.

I am not a troll, I am very sincere. You need to look up 'troll' because it is not somebody who disagrees with you - which should be the other way round; I believe in something and am invested in discussion with something to gain from it, it is less than I can probably say for you.

Not only was I responded to in the first place, but just look at this and weep.

Your members, however, are welcome to stimulate their minds by debating the socialists here.

>that feel when green card
>muh freedom of speech

Respect your leader and stop trying to supress my right to free speech.

[Red Aegis]

I have no leader and did not suppress anything.

You cannot be serious when you said that murdering all of those people was alright because some were over 25 years of age; hence, I called you a troll. Also, prove that I'm a fascist. You can't because I'm not.

[Guest777]

Well I wasn't addressing you, and that isn't what I said. I said that your admin is either a confused marxist or a cowardly fascist, but you are right that criticism extends across the rest of the form.

You, well you could always be neither of those and just be a sperg, the fact you have MGS as your avatar shows you have a problem differenciating consumer entertainment and politics.

[Red Aegis]

I have no problem seeing the difference. I just don't see the need to tattoo Marx's face to my back.

Again, how would I either be a confused Marxist or a fascist?

[Guest777]

mate, srsly.

[Red Aegis]

You said that I'm either a confused Marxist, a cowardly fascist, or mentally retarded.

Do you stand by that or not?

[GF]

You cannot be serious when you said that murdering all of those people was alright because some were over 25 years of age.

Indeed. Why hasn't Guest777 been banned yet?

[Celtiberian]

I thank you for your invite to participate in your forum, I guess I had to make an account here to continue but I am probably going to be in breach of a whole bunch of your rules if I join and will be after this post.

That's fine, you'll simply be placed under restriction.

Perhaps I am ignorant, or maybe not.

You undoubtedly are.

I was under the impression that this was exactly what this place was. I saw it listed a while ago as being a ‘free speech version of revleft’ along the lines of revleft 2.

It's true that we tolerate a wider range of opposing views than RevLeft, but we've never advertised ourselves as its "free speech" counterpart.

Your members seem to not like revleft because it does to you what you do to strasserites (do you see a food chain with consistency at the top?)

Incorrect. What we do to Strasserists is debate them and attempt to persuade them of the merits of revolutionary socialism and left-wing nationalism, whereupon they either (1) cease being Strasserists, (2) remain Strasserists and continue to debate us, or (3) join your fascist cesspool. None of the founders of this forum have ever participated in a debate on RevLeft, nor are we interested in so doing.

What next? ‘progressive nationalism’? Oh I am sure that Revleft would be totally understanding of this.

Unlike the pathetic Kulturkampf doctrine individuals like yourself espouse, left-wing nationalism (as we define it) does not concern itself with racial or gender struggles. Simply put, it is a hypothesis regarding the manner by which international affairs we be organized following the proletarian revolution. In opposition to left-wing cosmopolitans, and following in the vein of Marxist thinkers such as James Connolly, Stanisław Brzozowski, Otto Bauer, Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz, and Frida Kahlo (to name but a few), we contend that nationality is a legitimate and enduring source of self-identification.

Mabye ‘as absurd’ but there is a clear distinction even there which needs to be made.

The only distinction is that Iron March's particular brand of neo-fascism happens to ridicule the racist and anti-Semitic excesses of the average White Nationalist or neo-Nazi. You still fundamentally agree that there is a 'Jewish problem' and the various races of mankind are unequal (both in innate ability and moral consideration) and condemned to an eternal struggle for hegemony over the world's resources. This distinction is meaningful insofar as we can expect fewer Iron March members to massacre defenseless Sikhs or attend David Duke lectures than Stormfront members, but from the perspective of political philosophy, such differences are insignificant.

Do they? – Breivik has been almost universally slandered and rejected by nationalist groups. A modern nationalist political party is a pseudo civil rights organisation – it wants to get on the gravy train the way that minority community leaders are able to, they are trying to be liberal politicians and playing at liberal politics.They are very PC and totally afraid of being called any mean word; asking a far right politician about the holocaust is a good method the news media have of making him squirm in a way that no good can come out of it. Like Nixon said “I called him a pig fucker… I wanted to see the bastard deny it.”

They distance themselves from Breivik only because they are intelligent enough to recognize that his decision to commit a heinous act of domestic terrorism against his compatriots reflects poorly on their cause—which is, as Admin previously stated, indistinguishable from Breivik's. Again, it's a disagreement over the means utilized, not the end sought.

However funny thing is you run ‘communist massacre red terror’ allegations to any leftist and they don’t give a shit – put on the spot they will claim it is necessary, because unlike most nationalists they have values which they believe are worth killing for.

With the exception of a few dogmatic Marxist-Leninists, the overwhelming majority of contemporary revolutionary Leftists regard the various atrocities committed by the state socialist regimes throughout history to have been unnecessary and indefeasible.

We are not hypocrites, we don’t whitewash history, we accept responsibility for what our values and actions result in, but it doesn’t bother us.

Which isn't especially surprising, given that sociopaths lack the ability to empathize with human suffering.

Yes defenceless youths like:

They were old enough to understand treason.

They got what they deserved.

"Treason" according whom? Breivik? A handful of deranged fascists on an internet forum? These were the children of Labor Party bureaucrats, and even if they had eventually become functionaries in that party themselves, in Western jurisprudence a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, being that your inane criteria for treason surely includes simply being born into a family which holds membership in a political party deemed 'degenerate,' I suppose that's of no consequence to you.

#Breivik saw two people at south tip and shot them in head. Then saw small boy, standing there, crying hard. Just standing there.
#Breivik: "And he looked very small, couldn't possibly be 16, and I said 'don't worry, be calm, it'll be alright' "
>he thought 'my mission is over', had no intention of firing on the police because they are not the enemy

Heartwarming.. He spared the life of a terrified sobbing child, after having murdered dozens of other innocent young people moments earlier. How dare we fail to appreciate the profound humanity displayed in that gesture.

Unlike you we do not pretend – we want liberalism exterminated, I am only confused why you don’t.

I'm quite satisfied with the legacy of the Enlightenment. My only criticism is that the ideal for which countless people gave their lives, that of liberté, égalité, fraternité, cannot be realized within the confines of the political and economic system the bourgeoisie replaced the ancien régime with. The solution, however, isn't to reject modernity and return to the Dark Ages, as the fascists propose, but rather to transcend capitalism itself, to achieve a higher form production (i.e., socialism).

If by "liberalism" you have in mind cultural degeneration, I have no interest in participating in futile crusades to censor and regulate our social life. As a materialist, I fully acknowledge that capitalism has had a pernicious effect on the cultural life of the working class, but that can only be remedied by fundamentally rearranging the substructure of society—thereby rendering it conjoined with the class struggle. Furthermore, what individuals of your ideological persuasion generally regard as being 'degenerate' behavior is virtually anything that deviates from the vapid barracks culture you extol, and is therefore unworthy of troubling oneself over.

Either way this is another case of latent hypocrisy. A Marxist disgusted at violence, yet the forum Banner has a man with a rifle. War and revolution glorified everywhere, and is integral part of the theory. I think I already made my point before.

You possess a faulty understanding of Marxism, which isn't surprising. Marxists don't uncritically accept violence as being necessary to fulfill our objectives. Indeed, one of our central criticisms of capitalism is the immense human suffering it perpetuates. And though we consider class warfare to be the mechanism of historical progress, it isn't something we 'glorify.' In our view, the success of the proletariat in the struggle over the joint product will signal the end of mass violence. Our avatar symbolizes our commitment to preparing the working class for this final struggle (to quote "The Internationale").

Fascism, on the other hand, regards warfare as being intrinsically good and unavoidable. Its obsession with militarism and imperialism is undeniably one of the prime reasons the doctrine resonates with so many sociopaths.

We accept Hitler because he has laid down a model for political struggle that is simply put; timeless, and of the highest value to anyone seeking to succeed in politics.

Hitler's "timeless" model for political struggle was quite simple: take advantage of the bourgeoisie's anxiety in the face of a burgeoning revolutionary threat by presenting your party as the bulwark of private property. (Trotsky's analysis of National Socialism summarizes the matter very well.) It's the same model Mussolini mastered over a decade earlier, and it certainly remains viable to this day—I for one don't deny the possibility that the capitalist class may again resort to financing such parties.

You have this theory we are psychopathic, for what? Not whitewashing history

For making light of genocide, supporting a doctrine which espouses expansionism and mindless warfare, and celebrating some of history's most ruthless murderers.

why do you think Arktos press publish only Codreanu? Why is there thoughts and perspectives series for him, Ezra Pound, Nietzsche, Strasser ect – But you will never see a Goebbels, Mosley, Himmler.

I couldn't care less why some obscure, reactionary publishing company releases what it does. I'm sure you can find titles by your preferred counterrevolutionary authors elsewhere.

So what there is no such thing as fascism? If you had read fascist texts you would not make such a silly statement.

Of course fascism exists, but the majority of your membership either can't agree on what it constitutes or distances themselves from the label itself.

Fascism on the other hand is different, and the consistency of its ideology is evidenced by the fact that it can cultivate and be expressed as religious fanaticism, like the communists of last century. This may be difficult to understand if your belief is that man has been moved only by his stomach in the history of dialectical materialism, but to my mind if somebody is willing to hold a faith in higher importance than his own single life, then you would conclude that it was likely something very unambiguous.

Your understanding of dialectical materialism is no improvement over your asinine characterization of the class struggle. That aside, fascism has only ever succeeded in cultivating "religious fanaticism" by deceiving the public. Hitler did so by manipulating proletarian veterans into thinking his party was socialist, and later by convincing the German people that their fatherland was under attack from the forces of Western democracy and Eastern "Judeo-Bolshevism." Mussolini embarked on a similar project. In addition to incessant state propaganda, they were also able to manufacture consent by a combination of Keynesian stimulus programs and sharing the spoils of war with their populations—as Götz Aly chronicles in Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State. The point is that, contrary to what you suggest, there wasn't some major zeitgeist shift in the German and Italian people as a result of the impeccable logic and wisdom of fascist theory.

Ok, so you are Strasserism lite

What would "Strasserism lite" be, exactly? Less anti-Semitism, less corporativism, and less idealism? Sorry, but even if it 'looks the same' to you, we belong to an entirely different tradition. The very fact you sense any similarities at all betrays just how little you know about both philosophies. That you're unfamiliar with the history of Marxian left-wing nationalism is predictable, but you really should know something about Strasserism by now.

‘muh progressive nationalism’ – defined only by what it is not, it is not ‘capitalist’ and not ‘reactionary’ , these things you define.

We intentionally defined left-wing nationalism in negative terms in the FAQ in order to allow the forum to be more inclusive. I provided you with a concise positive description above.

As hypocritical as it sounds I think you are living in the 1930’s: You are Either a Marxist thinking only in theory and closing your eyes to the mainstream currents and events of the past decades, or you are a very cowardly fascist who has built a colossal, and impressive façade of leftism to hide this – either way you are in denial.

It's astounding how you conjure up these ridiculous narratives in your mind. The history of 20th century socialism was the history of movements and regimes having to come to terms with the persistence of national identity. Objective observers are in agreement over this. It is the cosmopolitans who are in denial, and, like yourself, they have a penchant for falsifying history (e.g., by presenting Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as having been cosmopolitan thinkers). Left-wing nationalism is not something we invented, but it is something we're perfecting.

[Confusion]

The nice people on stormfront are faggots who deserve nothing good in their lives. That you prefer craven cowards is indicative of your own integrity. Funny how you are now quick to bring the capitalist system's police into this even though we do nothing illegal - all that revolutionary talk is hot air.

GROWL!

And then you squeak "Free speech!" later in one of your posts, classic trolling. Pretty

Boundaries and rules are good, all societies need them. And besides: A movement is made up at least as much by the individuals it consists of, as it is by doctrine. If the quality of the people is as low as it is on your forum, grand theories does not get you anywhere - specially when they don`t make sense.

[Guest777]

You undoubtedly are.

Hurff durf durr, yeah lets see you try and prove me wrong.

Unlike the pathetic Kulturkampf doctrine individuals like yourself espouse, left-wing nationalism (as we define it) does not concern itself with racial or gender struggles. Simply put, it is a hypothesis regarding the manner by which international affairs we be organized following the proletarian revolution. In opposition to left-wing cosmopolitans, and following in the vein of Marxist thinkers such as James Connolly, Stanisław Brzozowski, Otto Bauer, Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz, and Frida Kahlo (to name but a few), we contend that nationality is a legitimate and enduring source of self-identification.

- a question, are National liberation struggles also marxist?

They distance themselves from Breivik only because they are intelligent enough to recognize that his decision to commit a heinous act of domestic terrorism against his compatriots reflects poorly on their cause—which is, as Admin previously stated, indistinguishable from Breivik's. Again, it's a disagreement over the means utilized, not the end sought.

Method and ideology go together - in fact this is the whole basis of Fascism and its moral consistency. Ideology is strength, if you don't stand up for yourself you are not a fascist. What these befuddled nincompoops have been led to belief is that moderation and rejection of violent methods make them somehow more acceptable to the population. Practical reality shows the opposite is true, just witness the difference in results of the pacifist British Nationalist Party as against the violent and muscular Golden Dawn which has only really started making progress now they are taking the streets.

George Lincoln Rockwell explained it best.
"The left-wing is not dignified or reasonable, but it is succeeding. It has power! It is winning because it understands the fundamental source of all political power, which is in the common, ordinary masses of people. Ultimate political power does not reside in "conservatives" or "liberals" or intellectuals or goon squads, but in the millions upon millions of plumbers, carpenters, laborers, taxi-drivers, bartenders, etc. And these millions are never won by argument, but always by the extremes of emotion. They love and they hate. They play like kids and they fight like animals. They despise weakness, especially in leaders, and love strength even when it tyrannizes over them. Roosevelt was a devilish example of that. They do not want to see an intellectual discussion between lofty political ideas, but the crushing victory of their side and the utter annihilation of the enemy, whomever he may be."
- this is an argument made in Mein Kampf Book II, but I think this simplifies it better.

Notice how when the entire power of communism physically collapsed in 1992, Trotskyism as a movement was almost totally unaffected as if it had a parallel existence to the real world.

The only distinction is that Iron March's particular brand of neo-fascism happens to ridicule the racist and anti-Semitic excesses of the average White Nationalist or neo-Nazi. You still fundamentally agree that there is a 'Jewish problem' and the various races of mankind are unequal (both in innate ability and moral consideration) and condemned to an eternal struggle for hegemony over the world's resources. This distinction is meaningful insofar as we can expect fewer Iron March members to massacre defenseless Sikhs or attend David Duke lectures than Stormfront members, but from the perspective of political philosophy, such differences are insignificant.

It is the similarities that are insignificant. none of us would ever attend a david duke 'lecture' (hypothetically) because is an absolutely disgusting and morally bankrupt hack who is aping the worst aspects of the civil rights movement - he doesn't have a fascist bone in his body, no more than you would accept democrat. He really does throw the baby out with the bathwater so I don't know what we have in common. He slaggs off the Jews, but from a humanitarian and college leftist perspective - this attempt at entryism backfires and they become the enemy, they become cryptojews trying to remove the right of self defence of a nation state thousands of miles away. I agree there is a problem with Jewish traitors, but most of us don't have a problem with Israel, other than it is currently run by neocons, and I have spoken to Israelis who have no objections to us gassing the Jew traitors and continuing the alliance with them.

With the exception of a few dogmatic Marxist-Leninists, the overwhelming majority of contemporary revolutionary Leftists regard the various atrocities committed by the state socialist regimes throughout history to have been unnecessary and indefeasible.

But nobody really believes that - it is a copout, but nobody cares anyway. It isn't a big deal for you because you don't lose your convictions any less or the face of those convictions in popular discourse, and you won't be punished if you are unrepentant.

Still that so many of you regularly make this gesture demonstrates a lack of faith in ideals, and is maybe why they are so weak in the world today.

"Treason" according whom? Breivik? A handful of deranged fascists on an internet forum? These were the children of Labor Party bureaucrats, and even if they had eventually become functionaries in that party themselves, in Western jurisprudence a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, being that your inane criteria for treason surely includes simply being born into a family which holds membership in a political party deemed 'degenerate,' I suppose that's of no consequence to you.

If there is cause and effect don't children face the crimes of their parents? Are we not essentially responsible for our condition - at least, in a collective sense? Lots of tears for the labour party youth but what about the thousands of people raped and murdered in Europe every year as a direct result of mass immigration - you seem to be detached there, and this doesn't even go into other liberal policies. I am not sure that Innocent is the correct description for the 'children' on Utoya. It is true enough that if they had been raised under a healthy society they would not have had to die, as I am sorry, of course, that my people as a whole are being culturally and ethnically genocided - but we have to accept reality. Innocents? I think not. Certainly, that term should not be applied to young adults as old as them.

Utoya was only a consequence - if we had not allowed ourselves to become subject to cosmopolitan liberalism, its ideas and spirit, then this war would not be necessary. We can hardly consider ourselves blameless, we can hardly say we had no choice - we have been warned many times. Europeans have had democracy and over the past hundred years great men of principle have stood in defence of the nation, or against liberalism in some way and every time they have been punished whenever the population had a choice to shun and ignore them. the people have been acting like cowards preferring corrupt men as leaders who let them back up, postponing today what will become a greater problem tomorrow. So long as they had bread and circuses they did not care about national life and they allowed their vices and worst elements of their character to be pandered to.

when you consider then in the face of the sheer suffering and the harvest of blood that has yet to be reaped before this is all over, isn't folly, wilful ignorance, laziness, greed, irresponsibility, and moral timidity as blameworthy as the most deliberate malice? Aren’t attempts to start earlier with odds in our favour a supreme act of mercy? No group of people which neglects to ensure its own survival, when the means for that survival are at hand, can be judged "innocent," and the penalty exacted against them be considered unjust. everyone gets what they deserve.

You possess a faulty understanding of Marxism, which isn't surprising. Marxists don't uncritically accept violence as being necessary to fulfill our objectives. Indeed, one of our central criticisms of capitalism is the immense human suffering it perpetuates. And though we consider class warfare to be the mechanism of historical progress, it isn't something we 'glorify.' In our view, the success of the proletariat in the struggle over the joint product will signal the end of mass violence. Our avatar symbolizes our commitment to preparing the working class for this final struggle (to quote "The Internationale").

Fascism, on the other hand, regards warfare as being intrinsically good and unavoidable. Its obsession with militarism and imperialism is undeniably one of the prime reasons the doctrine resonates with so many sociopaths.

I am not sure if people here are sincere and realistic Marxists yet, but assuming you are there is a fine line between advocacy and glorification. From something like say a Sergei Einstein film it is hard to know what your reaction is supposed to be and there is no emotional investment when you are dealing with what is essentially a faith. Ok, so you make it analogous to the anthem – a piece of music to extol, if you love something you hate that which threatens it. Masses of people certainly don’t view things with detachment, when moved they are enraged and they hate, and if this wasn’t the case Communism would have never left Europe. It is telling that the ‘sociopathic’ and grim ‘Turner Diaries’ was made as a modernised tribute to jack London’s ‘the Iron Heel’, which is as strange as it might sound as popular with us as it is with you. It also gives rise to the question whether he also wrote ‘might is right’.

I'm quite satisfied with the legacy of the Enlightenment. My only criticism is that the ideal for which countless people gave their lives, that of liberté, égalité, fraternité, cannot be realized within the confines of the political and economic system the bourgeoisie replaced the ancien régime with. The solution, however, isn't to reject modernity and return to the Dark Ages, as the fascists propose, but rather to transcend capitalism itself, to achieve a higher form production (i.e., socialism).

If by "liberalism" you have in mind cultural degeneration, I have no interest in participating in futile crusades to censor and regulate our social life. As a materialist, I fully acknowledge that capitalism has had a pernicious effect on the cultural life of the working class, but that can only be remedied by fundamentally rearranging the substructure of society—thereby rendering it conjoined with the class struggle. Furthermore, what individuals of your ideological persuasion generally regard as being 'degenerate' behavior is virtually anything that deviates from the vapid barracks culture you extol, and is therefore unworthy of troubling oneself over.

I see what you did there, implying we are fine specimins of barrack room fascism, that honour goes to cultural spastics of the movement; evolians, new rightists, national anarchists. The evil of that kind of malignancy is found in groups that are divorced from reality and applies that in a militant fashion

"“What a fine specimen of barrack-room communism!”, Marx and Engels once wrote about the well-known article of the Bakuninists entitled “The Main Principles of the Future Social System”, which proposed that men should produce for society as much as possible and consume as little us possible, that men’s activity should all be regulated, including the use of dining rooms and bedrooms, and that all the functions of administration should be vested in a committee of conspirators, without any control or responsibility to anyone. “This article shows that if mere mortals are being punished, as for a crime, for the very idea of a future organisation of society, that is because the leaders have already ordered everything beforehand.” We wonder what Marx and Engels would have said about the principles of present day Maoist policy, whose aim is to translate into life these monstrous principles of a reactionary utopia. [Chapter Four, 'The Attitude of Marxism and of Maoism to the State and Proletarian Legality', Konstantinov, F.V., Sladkovsky, M.I., Georgiyev, V.G., (eds.), A Critique of Mao-TseTung's Theoretical Conceptions]."

Fascism is life affirming, and that includes accepting the harsh realities of life, the two on principle are not to be confused.
"The universalists, the idealists, the Utopians all aim too high. They give promises of an unattainable paradise, and by doing so they deceive mankind. Whatever label they wear, whether they call themselves Christians, communists, humanitarians, whether they are merely sincere but stupid or wire-pullers and cynics, they are all makers of slaves. I myself have always kept my eye fixed on a paradise which, in the nature of things, lies well within our reach. I mean an improvement in the lot of the German people." - Adolf hitler

The result of the enlightenment you praise is the international state of being today, and the only thing that will overturn it is a revolution against enlightenment values. (I can't post links. Integral Europe by douglas Holmes) for further reference.

Hitler's "timeless" model for political struggle was quite simple: take advantage of the bourgeoisie's anxiety in the face of a burgeoning revolutionary threat by presenting your party as the bulwark of private property. (Trotsky's analysis of National Socialism summarizes the matter very well.) It's the same model Mussolini mastered over a decade earlier, and it certainly remains viable to this day—I for one don't deny the possibility that the capitalist class may again resort to financing such parties.

Cute bit of reassuring cultural myth, but the level of delusion comes from a man who lost everything in life and ended up with an ice pick in his head. the historians have spoken, and the fact is that the Nazis were hard up for money which all came from their fund raising activities, the 1933 election saw most of the funding go the conservative parties. If you are looking for backhanders why don't you take a look at the history of eurocommunism and see hom many supposed communists and trotskyists ended up becoming all these liberal politicians like Portuagal and EU president Barosso. why is the socialist workers party uk an arm of the National union of students and liberal labour party? Why does liberalism constantly have this incestious relationship with leftist organisations - yet there are no fascists given places in universities. We all know what happened in nazi germany, as if you are implying Hitler and his party did not somehow actually take power.

I was actually reffering to the neccessity of a morally consistant group as the premise for political success, a page he took out of the communists.
"At a time in which the one side, armed with all the fighting power that springs from a systematic conception of life – even though it be criminal in a thousand ways – makes an attack against the established order the other side will be able to resist when it draws its strength from a new faith, which in our case is a political faith. This faith must supersede the weak and cowardly command to defend. In its stead we must raise the battle-cry of a courageous and ruthless attack." - Uncle Hitler
Learning stuff yet?

For making light of genocide, supporting a doctrine which espouses expansionism and mindless warfare, and celebrating some of history's most ruthless murderers.

Well, then you cry for me instead.

Your understanding of dialectical materialism is no improvement over your asinine characterization of the class struggle. That aside, fascism has only ever succeeded in cultivating "religious fanaticism" by deceiving the public. Hitler did so by manipulating proletarian veterans into thinking his party was socialist, and later by convincing the German people that their fatherland was under attack from the forces of Western democracy and Eastern "Judeo-Bolshevism." Mussolini embarked on a similar project. In addition to incessant state propaganda, they were also able to manufacture consent by a combination of Keynesian stimulus programs and sharing the spoils of war with their populations—as Götz Aly chronicles in Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State. The point is that, contrary to what you suggest, there wasn't some major zeitgeist shift in the German and Italian people as a result of the impeccable logic and wisdom of fascist theory.

I don't understand dialectical materialsm, but your whole theory of fascism was that it is secretly insincere. It is all about individual power grabbing and plundering - why then, all the risk, why all the money? Considering this post do you really think none of this is real.

It's astounding how you conjure up these ridiculous narratives in your mind. The history of 20th century socialism was the history of movements and regimes having to come to terms with the persistence of national identity. Objective observers are in agreement over this. It is the cosmopolitans who are in denial, and, like yourself, they have a penchant for falsifying history (e.g., by presenting Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as having been cosmopolitan thinkers). Left-wing nationalism is not something we invented, but it is something we're perfecting.

20th century shows the opposite, it shows communist losing the will to live and collapsing in on their own absurdity - while the intellectual seats of communism changed tactics in the 60s and now spend all their time trying to destroy all european culture and concepts of nationality.

What would "Strasserism lite" be, exactly? Less anti-Semitism, less corporativism, and less idealism? Sorry, but even if it 'looks the same' to you, we belong to an entirely different tradition. The very fact you sense any similarities at all betrays just how little you know about both philosophies. That you're unfamiliar with the history of Marxian left-wing nationalism is predictable, but you really should know something about Strasserism by now.

It is tier making 'I am in a bubble you can't touch me'; like dugin, like strasserites, like national anarchists, and you all hate eachother. You cannot really be marxists because it rejects utterly the concept of the nation, it has always been the enemy. It is exactly like when a stormfag tried to shield himself in a coat of civil rights as if they applied to white people.

If I am so wrong on this question why do all marxists so ruthlessly oppose nationalist concepts and browbeat 'progressive patriotism' with such anger and hatred - why are you here on this corner of the internet.

You are not progressive nationalists, you are self hating nazis. All I will get is more pagentry, but it is just a facade to hide this fact.

[Altair]

Can I just point out the the core members ('Adminship' included) over at IM are under the impression that the work of Ayn Rand is left-wing?

I'm sorry, but when someone says "There are honestly more similarities between Marxism and Fascism than between Objectivism and Fascism", how in the world is any well read person supposed to take that seriously?

[Guest777]

Can I just point out the the core members ('Adminship' included) over at IM are under the impression that the work of Ayn Rand is left-wing?

I'm sorry, but when someone says "There are honestly more similarities between Marxism and Fascism than between Objectivism and Fascism", how in the world is any well read person supposed to take that seriously?

because in the real world viscious self gratification is a code most real world leftists subscribe to. It is a form of anarchism which is a left wing mental disorder. It is founded on the egocentric civil rights fraud: muh freedom from religion, muh freedom from social obligation, etc. Try and tell me that the mentally ill Communist ramblings of Wilhem Reich are any different from objectivism listenlittlemanDOTcom

This was covered in the thread you didn't bother to read. What is the problem you people have with reading?

[Sponsored content]