Re: Iron March Forum

[NationalPhalanx]

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?

Objectivism is a hedonistic, hyper-individualistic, anti-collectivist ideology that sees all forms of force as oppressive and unjustified. They pretty much adhere to the Libertarian concept of "negative" rights. Now granted, there are social darwinist aspects of Objectivism, but they are on an individual basis and not at all similar to the Fascist conception of Social Darwinism. In addition Ayn Rand was somewhat of a neurotic hypocrite; probably a clinical psychopath. There was a lack of complete internal consistency in her views. I do not consider a woman who believed that the obligation to raise a family is an oppressive concept to be "right-wing".

I should say, people of our worldview generally do not view economics as the be-all, end-all way of telling if someone is right or left. I consider a neo-liberal a leftist, a neo-conservative a leftist, a social democrat a leftist, an anarcho-syndicalist a leftist, and I consider a Marxist a leftist. Their overall worldview, that of egalitarian utopianism, regardless of whether they are capitalist or socialist, is what makes them left-wing.

[Altair]

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

Conflating the revolutionary Left with liberalism will not get you anywhere.

[All American Protectorate]

Conflating the revolutionary Left with liberalism will not get you anywhere.

I'm inclined to disagree; liberalism has hijacked the "revolutionary left" from a social perspective more than once throughout history.

neo neo neo neo neo

[Guest777]

Conflating the revolutionary Left with liberalism will not get you anywhere.

Further than banning me from the chatbox will. I wasn't conflating superficial characteristics, there is undeniable proof of symbiosis between the two, ignoring me here won't get you anywhere.

Wilhelm Reich as well as being a Randian communist was also a psychoanalyst, which in the modern sense has been a leftist science since Sigmund Freud - who pioneered the concept of ego. In the 30's and 40's they permeated every area of capitalistic life; big shot directors, Actors, Artists, Writers, Editors were all open members of the communist party, state officials, bureaucrats, policy makers, Intelligence operatives - less openly. After the war the Liberal plutocrats saw what had happened in Germany and feared what nationalism could produce - so they conspired to undermine and destroy this aspect of the people. If you don't believe me on the last part, then you should watch any collection of 45-48 movies, literature, radio and then try and tell me I am wrong.

Sigmund Freud's Nephew Edward Bernays another head doctor is the first person to master the art of modern marketing. He used leftism for this - eg; He stuck female employees in feminist marches with cigarettes and call them 'liberty sticks'. The consumer revolution coincides with the social revolution of 1968, whose doctrines had been pioneered by the likes of the communists horkheimer, Reich, Béla Kun, et al in the 1930's. They preached the love cult, pacifism, Liberation from family, liberation from nationality - the Premise also of the Maoist Jean Paul Sartre - it increased people's 'needs', gave them things wants didn't need so they would buy more. This is the entire premise behind what was to follow:

Friedman, Hayek, Rand - Reagan-Thatcher revolution! but even after they become irrelevant big money pays communists to engage in acts of acts of subversion to further the interests of capitalism.

The most capitalistic industry of all is the art industry which is comprised entirely of communists was raised from the floor as adopted pets, art is now the currency of the ultra rich. My country's largest industry the higher education industry which nets loans companies billions is inundated with Marxist sociological, cultural, and historical studies - in most cases they have entire wings. the movie industry is used today as it was 60 years ago to push left wing ideals - along with capitalistic ones.

All the evidence shows likes of leftists, are entirely responsible for western consumerism, and this has always been the case. You want proof? it is a 300 foot billboard with Che Guevara on it being used to sell mobile phones - You are phoney and it stinks. Capitalism feeds on a rotting society and communism is rot!

This is all documented in Adam Curtis's award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self. Watch that, it is on youtube.

The birth of modern consumer capitalism is not the only instance of this - it started much earlier in germany put a stop to it. Look up the Bauhaus, or any building an intellectual communist put up in the 20's; Department stores, hat factories, skyscrapers while the people rotted and starved. that is communism

[Altair]

Objectivism is a hedonistic, hyper-individualistic, anti-racist, anti-collectivist ideology that sees all forms of force as oppressive and unjustified. They pretty much adhere to the Libertertarian concept of "negative" rights. Now granted, there are social darwinist aspects of Objectivism, but they are on an individual basis and not at all similar to the Fascist conception of Social Darwinism. In addition Ayn Rand was somewhat of a neurotic hypocrite; probably a clinical psychopath. There was a lack of complete internal consistency in her views.

I should say, people of our worldview generally do not view economics as the be-all, end-all way of telling if someone is right or left. I consider a neo-liberal a leftist, a neo-conservative a leftist, a social democrat a leftist, an anarcho-syndicalist a leftist, and I consider a Marxist a leftist. Their overall worldview, that of egalitarian utopianism, regardless of whether they are capitalist or socialist, is what makes them left-wing.

So I suppose you think libertarianism is left wing as well? As Celtiberian stated in this post, libertarianism "...is merely a synonym for laissez-faire capitalism and political minarchism. Such a system is as hierarchical and autocratic as fascism, only its authoritarianism is applied within enterprises as opposed to national politics." Just because they are opponents of 'da big gubmint' does not in any way, shape, or form make them leftist. I guess you fail to realize this because of your propensity to group so many different ideas together, even when they are fundamentally opposed, as I will address in the last part of my post.

As for 'anti-racist', you must be kidding. Laissez-faire capitalism spawns and perpetuates racism and does so out of what is almost necessity.

Also, to regard capitalism as being in any way egalitarian is completely unfounded, of course.

And yes, if you can't already tell, I think Ayn Rand and her writings are repulsive. As for psychopath she, much like you all, believed that those who were apparently 'willfully ignorant' deserved their fate, be it continued ignorance or death. Never mind the Marxist definition of materialism, right. Which you probably amalgamate with Randian materialism, anyway...

Given this...can you please explain to me how Marxism, and the general views espoused on this forum, resonate with what Ayn Rand said in any way? Especially more so than they resonate with fascism? It makes little sense.

The fact you believe all of this: "I consider a neo-liberal a leftist, a neo-conservative a leftist, a social democrat a leftist, an anarcho-syndicalist a leftist, and I consider a Marxist a leftist. Their overall worldview, that of egalitarian utopianism, regardless of whether they are capitalist or socialist, is what makes them left-wing" must only contribute to your extremely shallow understanding.

You say "people of our worldview generally do not view economics as the be-all, end-all way of telling if someone is right or left", yet you group together so many different trains of thought and claim they are all the same? That is completely nonsensical.

I could delve more deeply into this, but I am sure one of the ECRSF members will more thoroughly address your points in time.

[NationalPhalanx]

So I suppose you think libertarianism is left wing as well? As Celtiberian stated in this post, libertarianism "...is merely a synonym for laissez-faire capitalism and political minarchism. Such a system is as hierarchical and autocratic as fascism, only its authoritarianism is applied within enterprises as opposed to national politics." Just because they are opponents of 'da big gubmint' does not in any way, shape, or form make them leftist. I guess you fail to realize this because of your propensity to group so many different ideas together, even when they are fundamentally opposed, as I will address in the last part of my post.

I would say in a general sense that authoritarianism does not inherently make something right-wing. You could theoretically have a left-wing authoritarian dictatorship that promoted multiculturalism, anti-racism, cultural marxism and the like.

As for 'anti-racist', you must be kidding. Laissez-faire capitalism spawns and perpetuates racism and does so out of what is almost necessity.

I do not think "capitalism" causes racism; capitalism even profits off of political correctness and multi-culturalism. I think it can profit off of a lot of things on ether side of the spectrum. Forgive me, I find the tendency of Marxists to classify every thing they consider negative to be the result of capitalism as somewhat paranoid - this can be blamed on ether tunnel vision or having an extremely broad definition of what constitutes "capitalism" - the latter of course is the primary reason, but I do not rule out the former.

Also, to regard capitalism as being in any way egalitarian is completely unfounded, of course.

Are we basing things in theory or in practice? I could say the same for communism as you say for these capitalist ideologies, no? Marxism tended to degenerate into authoritarianism - Stalinism for instance, which resembled Fascism in practice. A cliche statement yes, but true none-the-less. I could use the tendency for communism to devolve into authoritarian regimes to say communism is anti-equality and authoritarian, but I know that was not the intent at all, so I spare that accusation. I do not deny that Objectivism probably would degenerate into something it was not intended to be, something that would perhaps even be authoritarian, but that is irrelevent.

And yes, if you can't already tell, I think Ayn Rand and her writings are repulsive.

As do I. I would add childish as well.

As for psychopath she, much like you all, believed that those who were apparently 'willfully ignorant' deserved their fate, be it continued ignorance or death.

I think the interpretations we make of that and the Objectivist makes are vastly different.

Never mind the Marxist definition of materialism, right. Which you probably amalgamate with Randian materialism, anyway..

I do not recall making this comparison.

Given this...can you please explain to me how Marxism, and the general views espoused on this forum, resonate with what Ayn Rand said in any way? Especially more so than they resonate with fascism? It makes little sense.

I do not believe it does at all. Me comparing Marxism to Fascism was simply a way to in-context illustrate how distant Objectivism was from Fascism. Now, there ARE some philosophical roots to both ideologies, yes, as Sorelianism did evolve into Fascism.

The fact you believe all of this: "I consider a neo-liberal a leftist, a neo-conservative a leftist, a social democrat a leftist, an anarcho-syndicalist a leftist, and I consider a Marxist a leftist. Their overall worldview, that of egalitarian utopianism, regardless of whether they are capitalist or socialist, is what makes them left-wing" must only contribute to your extremely shallow understanding.

You ask most of these people if they believe in universal human rights and equality, they will say yes. Neither of these methods, including Marxism, have ever led to the egalitarian utopia that they aim for. If I am to go by what you seem to be impyling, that in practice they were/are not egalitarian, making them not leftist, then by that logic none of these ideologies are left-wing.

[Celtiberian]

a question, are National liberation struggles also marxist?

Marxism is a method of analysis, not a mode of production or form of governance. If you're asking whether or not national liberation struggles can be explained through the prism of Marxist theory, the answer is yes. James Connolly's Labour in Irish History is one such example. Numerous national liberation struggles in recent history (e.g., the revolutions in Cuba and Vietnam) were also led by organizations which espoused Marxian socialism, thus indicating the class nature and liberatory potential of such conflicts.

Method and ideology go together

You may deny the legitimacy of referring to the current nationalist parties as being 'fascist' due to their adoption of reformist strategies, just as we revolutionary syndicalists rejected designating the various social democratic parties associated with the Second International as being in anyway 'revolutionary,' but the fact remains that the goals are similar. There wasn't a major difference in the end sought by the Socialist Party of America and that of the Industrial Workers of the World, for example, just as Breivik and groups like the British National Party share the same basic vision for the future of Europe. We conceded at the start of this debate that your tactics differed, but that doesn't negate the aforementioned parallels of vision we described.

in fact this is the whole basis of Fascism and its moral consistency.

What "moral consistency"? Fascist history is replete with internal power struggles, reneging on promises made to electorates, and compromises with the existing power structure (the church, the bourgeoisie, etc.). To the extent fascists even attempted to formulate a coherent doctrine—as observed in Giovanni Gentile's writings, for instance—the axioms they have based their ideology on are contradictory and flawed. In fact, fascism has always conspicuously lacked a unifying philosophy. In the Italian National Fascist Party alone, Gentile's Right Hegelianism competed with Alfredo Rocco's anti-Enlightenment étatisme over ideological hegemony in the party. The same was true in the National Socialist German Workers' Party, where Alfred Rosenberg's transcendentalist agrarianism competed with Hitler's Hobbesian social Darwinism.

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.

Not that I care about the Far Right's strategic disputes, but it's erroneous for a Brit to draw any conclusions from the political climate in Greece today. People are ignoring the violence Golden Dawn are engaging in because their economic situation is so dire that any signs of action are regarded as a welcome change from passivity in the face of growing desperation. Greeks have rightly become disillusioned with the establishment parties, and the radical Left has failed to emancipate the 8-10% of the electorate which voted fascist of the false consciousness which Golden Dawn is currently taking advantage of. During times of economic crisis, the fascists' simplistic ethic scapegoating resonates with workers who lack any sense of class consciousness, just as their corporativist economic platform is well received by the recently pauperized petite bourgeoisie.

And these millions are never won by argument, but always by the extremes of emotion. They love and they hate.

Yes, but in that quote Rockwell ignores the fact that these emotional extremes are contingent upon material conditions and are only politically significant insofar as activists are capable of persuading the masses that their agenda will benefit them in some capacity. Ergo, it requires of the masses a degree of reflection and contemplation. Revolutions (or counterrevolutions, in the case of fascism) depend on more than raw emotion.

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.

Supporting Israel is indeed the consistent position for a fascist to take, given the Zionist state's use of the fascist tenets of territorial expansionism, ethnic cleansing, and militarism. It's also further evidence of your antisocial personality disorder.

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.

Punished by whom? Intellectuals who defend the crimes of Stalinism are not only denied access into not the establishment's 'respectable' institutions, but are often treated as pariahs by any Leftist group outside of the narrow circle of remaining Marxist-Leninists.

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.

Since the Soviet Union's inception, there were socialists and communists who adamantly disagreed with the tactics employed by Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky. This wasn't attributable to any "lack of faith in ideals," but over a fundamental disagreement regarding what socialism is and how it can be achieved. It was apparent to most observers in the 20th century that the task of developing socialism in a backward, peasant country like Russia was going to prove difficult, if not impossible. In spite of that, Stalin's regime managed to develop the USSR's forces of production beyond most people's expectations, but it did so at an unacceptable human cost and without having achieved what many of us regard as a desirable socialism. Had the independent soviets not been suppressed by Lenin, it's conceivable that the USSR would still be in exist and serve as an example of how a just society might be organized.

Are we not essentially responsible for our condition - at least, in a collective sense?

I don't view society as currently representing a "collective" entity, so no. Capitalist society is merely a conglomeration of antagonistic social classes. Moreover, many (though not all) of the injustices and instances of ignoble behavior witnessed today are attributable to the substructure of society, whether directly or indirectly. Epigenetics and Lamarckian retrogenes empirically attest to the latter, as does neuroplasticity. Simply put, we are at the mercy of the material conditions we are born into, and therefore cannot be held exclusively responsible for our actions in life—though I'm not denying that we possess a certain amount of free will.

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.

Don't presume to know what my thoughts on immigration are. Had you taken the time to browse through my posts on this forum, you would realize that I acknowledge the economic hardships which the working class has had to endure as a result of mass immigration and favor its immediate abolition (which can only occur within a socialist mode of production, incidentally).

Rape and murder are to be expected from populations born into conditions of poverty and precariousness, particularly from those elements which seek refuge in destructive religions or subcultures. Outrage with this situation, however, should be directed against the ruling class and not the immigrants themselves—most of whom are not criminals and immigrated to the West only to better their lot in life.

I am not sure that Innocent is the correct description for the 'children' on Utoya.

None of those victims had any part in drafting legislation pertinent to immigration, so they cannot be accused of exacerbating any of the social maladies which Breivik (or any other fascist) associates with it. Your argument is that they are 'guilty' for having simply been members of the Labor Party and possibly being in a position to determine Norway's immigration policy at some point in the future. Such a stance is as indefensible as murdering the child of a Klansman because he or she might grow-up to eventually lynch a minority.

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.

Aside from your grammatical error of using 'genocide' as a verb, you're evacuating the term of its meaning. Unless you could demonstrate that immigration was being used for the deliberate purpose of exterminating your ethnocultural community, it does not qualify as genocide. (The major impetus behind immigration is obviously cheap labor, so genocide is not being committed. Ethnocultural displacement is, but it's hardly deliberate.)

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.

So since society is not interested in participating in your petty Kulturkampf, that gives reactionary terrorists carte blanche to murder whomever they please? What a fascinating rationalization of depraved behavior.

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're writing as if the Kulturkampf is a law of nature, as opposed to being an illusion existing solely in the minds of paranoid simpletons.

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.

Nonsense. I advocate for the right to bear arms, but I don't glorify the use of firepower. I also advocate on behalf capital punishment, but I don't relish in viewing people sentenced to death. Likewise, I view as regrettable the fact that the class struggle is a violent endeavor that has claimed the lives of honorable men and women throughout history. In the words of Terry Eagleton,

"Marxism is not generally seen as a tragic vision of the world. Its final Act—communism—appears too upbeat for that. But not to appreciate its tragic strain is to miss much of its complex depth. The Marxist narrative does not have to end badly to be tragic. Even if men and women find some fulfillment in the end, it is tragic that their ancestors had to be hauled through hell by the wayside, unfulfilled and unremembered. Short of some literal resurrection, we can never make recompense to these vanquished millions. Marx's theory of history is tragic in just this respect."
Terry Eagleton, Why Marx Was Right (London: Yale University Press, 2011), p. 61.

That is why methods of non-violence should be applied in the struggle for socialism to the greatest extent possible. This isn't as unrealistic as some may think, considering the fact that the Bolshevik revolution was a relatively non-violent affair, and Karl Marx himself had believed that socialism could be achieved by peaceful means. However, it's naïve to assume the bourgeoisie will relinquish control of the means of production without any violence at all, so some degree of brute force is likely inevitable. Working people have been suffering and dying as a result of this exploitative mode of production for centuries, but humanity will transcend this barbarism in due course.

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’.

It's definitely amusing to learn that William Pierce dedicated that rag to Jack London, when the regime the former desired for the United States would have been just as despotic as the one London depicts in The Iron Heel. As for London being the author of Might is Right, even if that were true (which is debatable), the book is universally regarded as satire. London was an exponent of revolutionary socialism and completely rejected the social Darwinism defended by 'Ragnar Redbeard.' He had been a social Darwinist early in life, but he explains why he abandoned that position in his 1905 non-fiction work, War of the Classes (pp. 272-278):

"In short, my joyous individualism was dominated by the orthodox bourgeois ethics. I read the bourgeois papers, listened to the bourgeois preachers, and shouted at the sonorous platitudes of the bourgeois politicians. And I doubt not, if other events had not changed my career, that I should have evolved into a professional strike-breaker, (one of President Eliot's American heroes), and had my head and my earning power irrevocably smashed by a club in the hands of some militant trades-unionist.

Just about this time, returning from a seven months' voyage before the mast, and just turned eighteen, I took it into my head to go tramping. On rods and blind baggages I fought my way from the open West where men bucked big and the job hunted the man, to the congested labor centres of the East, where men were small potatoes and hunted the job for all they were worth. And on this new blond beast adventure I found myself looking upon life from a new and totally different angle. I had dropped down from the proletariat into what sociologists love to call the 'submerged tenth,' and I was startled to discover the way in which that submerged tenth was recruited.

I found there all sorts of men, many of whom had once been as good as myself and just as blond beastly; sailor-men, soldier-men, labor-men, all wrenched and distorted and twisted out of shape by toil and hardship and accident, and cast adrift by their masters like so many old horses. I battered on the drag and slammed back gates with them, or shivered with them in box cars and city parks, listening the while to life-histories which began under auspices as fair as mine, with digestions and bodies equal to and better than mine, and which ended there before my eyes in the shambles at the bottom of the Social Pit.

And as I listened my brain began to work. The woman of the streets and the man of the gutter drew very close to me. I saw the picture of the Social Pit as vividly as though it were a concrete thing, and at the bottom of the Pit I saw them, myself above them, not far, and hanging on to the slippery wall by main strength and sweat. And I confess a terror seized me. What when my strength failed? when I should be unable to work shoulder to shoulder with the strong men who were as yet babes unborn?

". . .. I think it is apparent that my rampant individualism was pretty effectively hammered out of me, and something else as effectively hammered in. But, just as I had been an individualist without knowing it, I was now a Socialist without knowing it, withal, an unscientific one. I had been reborn, but not renamed, and I was running around to find out what manner of thing I was. I ran back to California and opened the books. I do not remember which ones I opened first. It is an unimportant detail anyway. I was already It, whatever It was, and by aid of the books I discovered that It was a Socialist. Since that day I have opened many books, but no economic argument, no lucid demonstration of the logic and inevitableness of Socialism affects me as profoundly and convincingly as I was affected on the day when I first saw the walls of the Social Pit rise around me and felt myself slipping down, down, into the shambles at the bottom."

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

Do you not extol the 'virtues' of military life: hierarchy, subordination, and unquestioned loyalty? I was under the impression that Iron March considered these to be the very essence of civilization.

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

I'm well aware of Adolf Hitler's conveniently pessimistic view of human nature and his vacuous criticisms of communism. I obviously disagree with them, and I'm afraid that merely quoting passages of his to me doesn't somehow lend validity to his claims.

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.

As I said, most Enlightenment values haven't been permitted to materialize due to the mode of production we currently live under. Or, to be more precise, what we've witnessed is a triumph of the Scottish Enlightenment, as opposed to the more radical French Enlightenment.

And you're mistaken if you truly believe that humanity is going to revert to the irrationality of the old order.

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.

Yes, they have spoken and I've researched this issue extensively over the years. While it's true the industrialists financed the conservative parties to a greater extent than they did the NSDAP, they still hedged their bets, as it were, by also funding Hitler. His refusal to redistribute the vast Junker estates and pathetic groveling before the leading German industrialists were duly rewarded—in the latter case, by a generous contribution of 2,071,000 reichsmarks. The academic consensus is that this represented a form of 'political blackmail,' since Hitler was taking advantage of the bourgeoisie's desperation at the possibility of socialist revolution. But the fact remains that the NSDAP were the de facto instruments of reaction in Germany.

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?

That is precisely why I'm a revolutionary syndicalist. Reformist parties invariably degenerate into docile appendages of the status quo. As for the SWP, being that they're Trotskyists, it doesn't surprise me that they are engaging in acts of entryism.

Why does liberalism constantly have this incestious relationship with leftist organisations - yet there are no fascists given places in universities.

What "incestuous relationship" are you referring to? Marxism hasn't been encouraged by liberalism. On the contrary, in the United States at least, it has been systematically undermined (research the history of the Red Scare, McCarthyism, and COINTELPRO). And we do have quasi-fascists in academia, e.g., Kevin MacDonald and Tamislav Sunić.

Well, then you cry for me instead.

What use would that be? Sociopaths cannot be made to feel empathy. The best I can hope for is that individuals like yourself are monitored closely enough by concerned citizens that you people are prevented from successfully executing another Breivik-esque attack.

I don't understand dialectical materialsm, but your whole theory of fascism was that it is secretly insincere.

It's not a "theory," it's an empirical fact.

It is all about individual power grabbing and plundering - why then, all the risk, why all the money?

Any student of economics will inform you that there is a certain amount of risk inherent in any attempt to accumulate profit. Being that the more radical elements of the fascist movement were historically veterans, there was also a certain amount of adventurism underlying their motivations. But that's inconsequential to the issue of why fascism came to power. There have always been fascistic movements, but seldom have they gained access to positions of authority in the global north.

20th century shows the opposite, it shows communist losing the will to live and collapsing in on their own absurdity

It wasn't "communists" who 'lost the will to live.' On the contrary, it was opportunistic, cynical bureaucrats who were behind the so-called 'collapse' of the Soviet bloc.

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

These 'communist intellectuals' to whom you're referring represent but one segment of the contemporary revolutionary Left, and they have no influence amongst working people whatsoever due to the asinine dogmas they espouse.

You cannot really be marxists because it rejects utterly the concept of the nation, it has always been the enemy.

Please stop reciting your grossly uninformed views of Marxism, you're just embarrassing yourself. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels never rejected the legitimacy of national identity; what they rejected was the state. Proletarian internationalism is not, nor has it ever been, incompatible with left-wing nationalism. John Spargo (prior to his abandonment of radicalism) put the matter rather succinctly, when he wrote:

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

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

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

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

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.

It's very simple. The Luxemburgist position on the national question has gained general acceptance on the Left; not because it's the closest to Marx and Engels's view on nationality, or what have you, but because cosmopolitanism has come to dominate the thinking among radicals in recent years. Of course, fascists like yourself are the beneficiaries of this unfortunate turn of events, because it's hindering the Left's progress—which is all the more reason for us to oppose it.

You are not progressive nationalists, you are self hating nazis.

Right.. And who better to determine that than a pompous neo-fascist who has demonstrated a deficient understanding of both Marxism and left-wing nationalism, and hasn't even taken the time to review the content of this forum?

[Confusion]

On the national question, I feel like adding that the left have never abandoned anti-globalization, and thus agrees with the far right on such areas as the right to set up trade-barriers and not conforming to policies created by international organizations such as the international monetary fond, or what their name is - and in some countries opposition against the EU. It gets a bit different with the UN, as it is a organization based on nation-states, and thus should enjoy higher respect and legitimacy. My guess is that guest777 dislikes the UN because they invented the human rights, and because they some times try to avoid war. It becomes incredibly silly, when it is so crystal-clear to everyone, that the fascism of Iron March is just used as an excuse to behave badly and masturbate to dystopian visions of the future.

I am tempted to say that fascism deserves better, but I am also uncertain. Perhaps it has always been like that?

[Celtiberian]

because in the real world viscious self gratification is a code most real world leftists subscribe to.

Who are these self-centered "real world leftists" you're referring to? Could it possibly be the ones who participate in innumerable solidarity demonstrations for human rights, wherein they risk being assaulted by the police just to take a stand for marginalized populations? Perhaps you mean the ones involved with providing food for the needy. Call Leftists what you will, but accusing us of being inordinately selfish is just ludicrous.

It is a form of anarchism which is a left wing mental disorder.

Conflating the bourgeois individualism of Ayn Rand with the individualism certain anarchist currents follow is absurd. One can scarcely imagine philosophies which share less in common. In fact, the only arguable similarity anarchism has with Objectivism is a general skepticism of coercion—though even their views on what qualifies as coercion diverge in significant ways.

It is founded on the egocentric civil rights fraud: muh freedom from religion, muh freedom from social obligation, etc.

What's fraudulent about civil rights? The fact you refuse to recognize them? Just because rights are essentially a social construct doesn't mean they're illegitimate. They are simply reflections of our ethical valuations as a society, and without them the only way to organize social relations would be on the basis of force alone (though such a retrograde concept probably appeals to you a great deal). The state itself is a social construct, but fascists like yourself still regard it as the highest good nonetheless.

Try and tell me that the mentally ill Communist ramblings of Wilhem Reich are any different from objectivism

I've not read Reich's work, and I doubt you have either. I do know that his psychological theories were considered highly unorthodox, which eventually led to his expulsion from the International Psychoanalytic Society. From my cursory reading of his biography, he seems to have been a bit of crackpot, but that isn't evidence of him having shared beliefs in common with Ayn Rand. Provide details or cease in attempting to draw connections where none exist.

Objectivism is a hedonistic, hyper-individualistic, anti-collectivist ideology that sees all forms of force as oppressive and unjustified.

Except, of course, the force required to enforce contracts and protect bourgeois property—which is quite extensive.

Now granted, there are social darwinist aspects of Objectivism, but they are on an individual basis and not at all similar to the Fascist conception of Social Darwinism.

And yet the social Darwinism subscribed to by fascists is equally inane.

There was a lack of complete internal consistency in her views.

I disagree. Objectivism possesses an internal logical consistency, despite the fact it's indefensible from an ethical perspective.

I do not consider a woman who believed that the obligation to raise a family is an oppressive concept to be "right-wing".

That's because in your opinion 'right-wing' is synonymous with Traditionalism.

Their overall worldview, that of egalitarian utopianism, regardless of whether they are capitalist or socialist, is what makes them left-wing.

In what sense can capitalism possibly be regarded as "egalitarian"? As for utopianism, do you honestly think that isn't applicable to fascism? For you people to genuinely believe that your Weltanschauung will result in anything other than soul-crushing oppression and/or humanity's mutually assured destruction is vastly more utopian than the socialist desire to achieve a classless society.

Wilhelm Reich as well as being a Randian communist was also a psychoanalyst, which in the modern sense has been a leftist science since Sigmund Freud - who pioneered the concept of ego.

Psychoanalysis is not a "leftist science." There were obviously a few attempts to incorporate facets of Marxist theory into psychoanalysis, but psychoanalysis proper was/is an apolitical psychological discipline.

In the 30's and 40's they permeated every area of capitalistic life; big shot directors, Actors, Artists, Writers, Editors were all open members of the communist party, state officials, bureaucrats, policy makers, Intelligence operatives - less openly.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that the communist figures in public life during the '30s-'40s only embraced revolutionary politics because a cabal of Marxist psychoanalysts brainwashed them into doing so?

After the war the Liberal plutocrats saw what had happened in Germany and feared what nationalism could produce

On an personal level, a few of them may have regretted what they had helped to unleash in Europe, and rightfully so.

so they conspired to undermine and destroy this aspect of the people. If you don't believe me on the last part, then you should watch any collection of 45-48 movies, literature, radio and then try and tell me I am wrong.

This sounds like something straight out of Tomislav Sunić's writings—or perhaps I'm mistaking him with some other New Right charlatan. Regardless, the only projects which the bourgeoisie are interested in are those which serve to reproduce them as a social class, usually by assisting in the accumulation of capital. They couldn't care less about humanitarian concerns.

The actual reason we have witnessed a marked decline in popular displays of reactionary nationalism over the last 50 years isn't because the ruling class has been brainwashed by cunning 'cultural Marxist' social engineers, but rather because finance capital has recently gained an advantage over industrial capital due to the bourgeoisie's current preference for receiving quicker returns by investing in asset values as opposed to production. Since industrial capital is the more labor-intensive of the two, it has historically been the supporter of nationalistic parties. However, the developments in transportation and communications technologies which have facilitated globalization in recent years have even diminished industrial capital's reliance on cultivating reactionary nationalist sentiments in the population to gain favorable trade and tax policies.

The consumer revolution coincides with the social revolution of 1968, whose doctrines had been pioneered by the likes of the communists horkheimer, Reich, Béla Kun, et al in the 1930's.

You fail to mention that the former was utilized to undermine the latter. Consumerism and hyperindividualism was one of the chief methods by which the ruling class succeeded in preventing the spread of social awareness and activism (or what the elite called the "crisis of democracy") during the late '60s and early '70s.

but even after they become irrelevant big money pays communists to engage in acts of acts of subversion to further the interests of capitalism.

Examples?

My country's largest industry the higher education industry which nets loans companies billions is inundated with Marxist sociological, cultural, and historical studies - in most cases they have entire wings.

You're clearly exaggerating the presence of Marxists in academia and the arts in the United Kingdom. But even if you weren't, all this would reveal is that educated and artistic people find value in some of Marx's work. You've not demonstrated that this is all part of a coordinated effort to undermine national identity and subvert the traditional values you consider sacrosanct, Breivik.

All the evidence shows likes of leftists, are entirely responsible for western consumerism

Sure.. It couldn't possibly be that capitalist enterprises were interested in accumulating more profit and simply utilized the latest research in psychology to discover how best to cultivate frivolous desires in their customers. No, it's inconceivable that profit played any role in this..

You want proof? it is a 300 foot billboard with Che Guevara on it being used to sell mobile phones

I stand corrected! Che Guevara on a billboard? The cultural Marxist conspiracy theory has been vindicated! It's not that hipsters feel 'edgy' by purchasing items with his image plastered on them, it's instead proof of the elite's determination to usher in global communism.

This is all documented in Adam Curtis's award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self. Watch that, it is on youtube.

I watched it about a year ago, and I can unequivocally state that you've completely mischaracterized Curtis's thesis in the film by attempting to shape it into conformity with the laughable paleoconservative cultural Marxist myth. Nice try.

Look up the Bauhaus, or any building an intellectual communist put up in the 20's; Department stores, hat factories, skyscrapers while the people rotted and starved. that is communism

Silly me for thinking that communism represented workers' control of the means of production and distribution. It's clearly isolated incidences of communist architects designing buildings during a period of time when people happened to be 'rotting and starving'..

I would say in a general sense that authoritarianism does not inherently make something right-wing. You could theoretically have a left-wing authoritarian dictatorship that promoted multiculturalism, anti-racism, cultural marxism and the like.

I agree. Authoritarianism is a necessary attribute of the Right, but it isn't sufficient enough to classify something as being right-wing.

Are we basing things in theory or in practice?

In both theory and practice, capitalism cannot be regarded as egalitarian. It fundamentally requires two classes with an unequal relationship to the means of production. This in turn results in a maldistribution of resources and authority.

Marxism tended to degenerate into authoritarianism

Marxism can't "degenerate" into anything, because it's simply a conceptual toolbox for investigating capitalism's laws of motion. You may argue that socialism "tended to degenerate into authoritarianism," but this would also be misleading because the only regimes which have were those which followed the Leninist model. A counterexample would be anarcho-syndicalism in Spain, which was radically democratic for the duration of its existence.

Now, there ARE some philosophical roots to both ideologies, yes, as Sorelianism did evolve into Fascism.

It's inaccurate to claim that Sorelianism "evolved into fascism," because a central feature of Sorelianism was initially revolutionary syndicalism. All Mussolini borrowed from Sorel was the use of animating myths, and they were utilized by him for reasons of class collaborationism—which is the converse of what Sorel had intended them to be used for.

Neither of these methods, including Marxism, have ever led to the egalitarian utopia that they aim for.

Marxian socialism has actually led to many instances of egalitarianism. The state socialist regimes, while not perfectly equal, nevertheless provided equal access to medical care and education for their citizens; cooperative organizers influenced by Marxian theory have succeeded in establishing egalitarian workplaces throughout the world; etc.

[Guest777]

This doesn't work - why do you have to continue breaking everything up and letting the conversation run away with whatever comes up, do you think I am made of time? What is wrong with addressing themes and arguments as a whole so it is more managable and cohernant? are you incapable of this? Before it was ok, but now you are ignoring all my arguments and focusing on minutia - half sentances out of context - clearly not to inquire with the intend of then returning to the point but to deviate. Almost none of of my original arguments is now being talked about - did I win or were you hoping I forget about them? Just acknowledging them and agreeing to disagree would be nice - it is why I came here. Otherwise it is flatly ignoring what it is I am saying, and if literally everyone here continues to do this then I think we are done. I will make arguments here in that vein.

I might also add the inability to link anything makes arguing difficult.

Marxism is a method of analysis, not a mode of production or form of governance. If you're asking whether or not national liberation struggles can be explained through the prism of Marxist theory, the answer is yes. James Connolly's Labour in Irish History is one such example. Numerous national liberation struggles in recent history (e.g., the revolutions in Cuba and Vietnam) were also led by organizations which espoused Marxian socialism, thus indicating the class nature and liberatory potential of such conflicts.

Marxism allows these exceptions to exist because its underdog relationship fits in with its submissive and egalitarian world view – like how workers supported Marxist parties out of a civil class interest, nowhere do you find a Marxism that is sincerely nationalist. Marxism meant strength for ‘national liberation movements’, but what has it meant for say the Rhodesians? Nothing but the genocide of their people's – and this is the problem. The problem I have with david duke taking the civil rights tack is that THEY DO NOT APPLY TO WHITE EUROPEANS, any university graduate in race relations will tell you this!

It is all based on narrative ; of who is oppressed, what belongs to who – it is not real life it is drawing lines in the sand – not something that applies to everyone. Narratives change. Though Marxists are still proud of their commitment to Ireland for instance, in relation to their socialist past and the troubles – we find now, a hundred years later are now imposing on them the same white guilt and multiculturalist policies, that have befallen Britain and the rest of Europe – including countries like Sweden with no colonial or oppressive histories. Someone like Jessie Jackson is a Marxist because it benefits his race – and he is also a democratic shill. These Europeans were never really Marxists, not in any true sense.

You may deny the legitimacy of referring to the current nationalist parties as being 'fascist' due to their adoption of reformist strategies, just as we revolutionary syndicalists rejected designating the various social democratic parties associated with the Second International as being in anyway 'revolutionary,' but the fact remains that the goals are similar. There wasn't a major difference in the end sought by the Socialist Party of America and that of the Industrial Workers of the World, for example, just as Breivik and groups like the British National Party share the same basic vision for the future of Europe. We conceded at the start of this debate that your tactics differed, but that doesn't negate the aforementioned parallels of vision we described.

The rank and file are different from the party. The youth groups of these organisations have always had some integrity – but the stated purpose of the organisation, its narratives and its leadership are all flawed.

A political party is not a forum – stormfront is a subculture within a movement that is a pariah and black sheep. If a number of them genuinely wanted the same thing we wanted then I would put aside any petty differences and try to work with them any way I could – but this is not true and I deeply contend this, let alone the notion that we are fellow travellers with an overlapping membership.
Leftists on the other hand don’t have this problem, which is why this is maybe difficult for you to understand. This is why we are coming together to develop a consistent current and we have let it flow a year now with the results you have seen, it has been a lot of progress.

Yes, they have spoken and I've researched this issue extensively over the years. While it's true the industrialists financed the conservative parties to a greater extent than they did the NSDAP, they still hedged their bets, as it were, by also funding Hitler. His refusal to redistribute the vast Junker estates and pathetic groveling before the leading German industrialists were duly rewarded—in the latter case, by a generous contribution of 2,071,000 reichsmarks. The academic consensus is that this represented a form of 'political blackmail,' since Hitler was taking advantage of the bourgeoisie's desperation at the possibility of socialist revolution. But the fact remains that the NSDAP were the de facto instruments of reaction in Germany.

Hitler grovelled to big business by threatening them – Marxists sure are capable of performing the most impressive intellectual acrobatics on things that contradict their myths. A historical debate is the last thing I want to get into right now especially without the ability to cite sources. This topic is a deviation unrelated to anything I even brought up.

Any student of economics will inform you that there is a certain amount of risk inherent in any attempt to accumulate profit. Being that the more radical elements of the fascist movement were historically veterans, there was also a certain amount of adventurism underlying their motivations. But that's inconsequential to the issue of why fascism came to power. There have always been fascistic movements, but seldom have they gained access to positions of authority in the global north.

There I was taking you seriously. I am not even going to dignify that with a response – other than the possibility that such people are masochists who enjoy hardship, though there are plenty of other ways of doing that. I am sorry, it is just this dualism has been the centre of this argument, and that you now come out with this shows you are not following it.

It wasn't "communists" who 'lost the will to live.' On the contrary, it was opportunistic, cynical bureaucrats who were behind the so-called 'collapse' of the Soviet bloc.

They were weak, corrupt and nobody fought for it in the streets. Just one division is all that would have been needed but they couldn’t even muster that.

These 'communist intellectuals' to whom you're referring represent but one segment of the contemporary revolutionary Left, and they have no influence amongst working people whatsoever due to the asinine dogmas they espouse.

Because they state quite openly they don’t need the workers, they just rule over and degrade them. In that regard who has been more influential than Hollywood, politics, news, music, and radio?

"Internationalism presupposes nationalism. It is the inter-relation of nations. The maintenance of national integrity and independence is an essential condition of internationalism. This principle has never in the past been seriously questioned in our movement. It has been the guiding principle of our policies in the Socialist International."

What is meant here by nation. I want Marxist definitions of nationalism.

It's very simple. The Luxemburgist position on the national question has gained general acceptance on the Left; not because it's the closest to Marx and Engels's view on nationality, or what have you, but because cosmopolitanism has come to dominate the thinking among radicals in recent years. Of course, fascists like yourself are the beneficiaries of this unfortunate turn of events, because it's hindering the Left's progress—which is all the more reason for us to oppose it.

I think that is the logical outcome of the process – the moral consistency to the foundations of the idea and groupthink.

Who are these self-centered "real world leftists" you're referring to? Could it possibly be the ones who participate in innumerable solidarity demonstrations for human rights, wherein they risk being assaulted by the police just to take a stand for marginalized populations? Perhaps you mean the ones involved with providing food for the needy. Call Leftists what you will, but accusing us of being inordinately selfish is just ludicrous.

That is all part of it, it is a form of self gratification, and probably also has a sexual element, this has been proven. the classic example of this is Peter singer's classic essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" on global hunger where he explains that foreign aid is a moral obligation for all individuals no matter the circumstances - irregardless of fact, like for instance how your actions might make things worse. It is all on the internet.

"I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad....if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it."

He then takes that to its logical conclusion and deconstructs any and all arguments against this logical train of thought. He proves that leftist conceptions of charity is mindless and irrational. For what is essentially the personal faith of thousands of nitwits in the west - world conditions over the past 40 years since the essay has written has deteriorated immeasurably - in Africa since that time the population has tripled. Originally it will reach the point of unsustainability, and what do you have then? collapse - mud hut genocide. The legacy of leftist morals has made mass genocide of humans in the future a certainty, as sure as the prediction the titanic would sink after being struck – the question us fascists ask is who will be among the survivors and doing what we can to ensure it is our people.

They It is similar to how atheists accuse Christians of being entirely selfish because it is all to get to heaven - the desire of a leftist is to be well adjusted, to feel they are 'helping' to make a global utopia is completely egocentric. Dogooding is the greatest threat to mankind, it is the type of morality that says that it is better to condemn thousands to die and suffer in nuclear fire than torture a terrorist for the location of the weapon. So that liberals might feel good about themselves now they ensure the problem multiplies - and so are contributing to a future world of mud hut genocides. Great going.

"Yes, the inability to face reality and make difficult decisions, that is the salient symptom of the liberal disease. Always trying to avoid a minor unpleasantness now, so that a major unpleasantness becomes unavoidable later, always evading any responsibility to the future--that is the way the liberal mind works."-William Pierce

Curing world hunger today would postpone the crisis for all but twenty years - and then the consequences would be bigger. The humane solution is to depopulate the teaming masses of the third world dependant on white money and white food, to sterilise and euthanize them back to manageable numbers.

What's fraudulent about civil rights? The fact you refuse to recognize them? Just because rights are essentially a social construct doesn't mean they're illegitimate. They are simply reflections of our ethical valuations as a society, and without them the only way to organize social relations would be on the basis of force alone (though such a retrograde concept probably appeals to you a great deal). The state itself is a social construct, but fascists like yourself still regard it as the highest good nonetheless.

I have demonstrated this is wrong - if do-gooding was an innate part of human biology we would have been wiped out. Rights are illegitimate because they don't exist and are incompatible with the scientific method fascism follows; you have evolution and that is all fine and good until you get to an animal on two legs, then he is something sacred. We say that is impossible, you either believe in the truth and apply it to yourself without egoism or you are kidding yourself.

Nature has its own morality and its own laws - my rights are affirmative rights. Somebody uses their natural right of superiority to abuse a child then they will be lynched and murdered by the community. that is the selection as laid down by Charles Darwin. We don't think we are above nature - and by extension family, social norms, race, nation, etc.

I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that the communist figures in public life during the '30s-'40s only embraced revolutionary politics because a cabal of Marxist psychoanalysts brainwashed them into doing so?

lol @funny mem. No I was explaining how leftist social theories were used by big business to start the consumer revolution, but I was also pointing out that big business, particularly Hollywood and the entertainment industry was infested with Jewish communists.

This sounds like something straight out of Tomislav Sunić's writings—or perhaps I'm mistaking him with some other New Right charlatan. Regardless, the only projects which the bourgeoisie are interested in are those which serve to reproduce them as a social class, usually by assisting in the accumulation of capital. They couldn't care less about humanitarian concerns.

The actual reason we have witnessed a marked decline in popular displays of reactionary nationalism over the last 50 years isn't because the ruling class has been brainwashed by cunning 'cultural Marxist' social engineers, but rather because finance capital has recently gained an advantage over industrial capital due to the bourgeoisie's current preference for receiving quicker returns by investing in asset values as opposed to production. Since industrial capital is the more labor-intensive of the two, it has historically been the supporter of nationalistic parties. However, the developments in transportation and communications technologies which have facilitated globalization in recent years have even diminished industrial capital's reliance on cultivating reactionary nationalist sentiments in the population to gain favorable trade and tax policies.

you are ignorant of all twentieth century social history and that since its inception political leftism has always been an elitist intellectual practice, and at its height was probably the wealthiest political conspiracy in history, when it was actually distinguishable with liberalism.

All of the following worked on major productions in the 1940's
Robert Rossen – Major Director, CPUSA member
Edward Dmytryk, director, CPUSA member
Lillian Hellman, playwright and screenwriter, CPUSA member and activist
Lester Cole, screenwriter, CPUSA member
Alvah Bessie, screenwriter, Spanish volunteer
Herbert Biberman – CPUSA member
Ring Lardner Jr, screenwriter, CPUSA member
John Howard Lawson, screenwriter, Head of the Hollywood division of the Communist Party USA.
Dalton Trumbo, screenwriter, CPUSA member
Bernard Gordon, screenwriter, CPUSA member

The following I double checked and confirmed, it does not include people who were only affiliated with the party or belonged to other political organisations like the screen writers guild, their hundreds of associated organisations, producers and actors of the day they worked with, and the others blacklisted from Hollywood after 1947. You totally neglect and seem to forget how communism has operated in the west over the past hundred years, you say they are wrong and tools of capitalist oppression, but somehow they are on the gravy train and you are not. The part of communism that really believes this missed the boat.

You fail to mention that the former was utilized to undermine the latter. Consumerism and hyperindividualism was one of the chief methods by which the ruling class succeeded in preventing the spread of social awareness and activism (or what the elite called the "crisis of democracy") during the late '60s and early '70s.

no, they only followed in the wake and trail of communist subversion of society, hyper individualism is cultural Marxism which came first. If capitalism is a vulture as the analogy goes communism is the killer virus that ensures such rich pickings - simply put a healthy fascist society would resist all these artificial currents.

Examples?

I gave you TWO, and again you ignore them, so I will give you another. Inner cities inward investment is needed into cities so Marxist institutions of 'scene' type zones are useful for capitalism. Left wing metropolises of San Francisco is an example – British communism lives in Brighton, it drives a hybrid car, visits and indie art gallery, buys hippie tat from the town, goes to a night club, buys smack, and takes an underage black youth back to its flat and allows it to brutally penetrates their anus.

You're clearly exaggerating the presence of Marxists in academia and the arts in the United Kingdom. But even if you weren't, all this would reveal is that educated and artistic people find value in some of Marx's work. You've not demonstrated that this is all part of a coordinated effort to undermine national identity and subvert the traditional values you consider sacrosanct, Breivik.

The industry is parasitical, it is a form of welfare, their jobs are guaranteed. It was a political decision to make because it is in the interest of capital these people have huge cultural influence - but they don't actually provide a service or have earned their position. These people are not intelligent, they are not true academics, they were scum and dropouts who lived in hippy communes who made political connections. look at the example of art i have given, how what was called brit art; a group of communist artists were invited to 10 downing street to endorse the new political elite in 1997 in return for power. It is the beetles being knighted by the queen.

It is like if I were to come to power and put all these New right pseudo academics in positions in the universities - they are just as bit as intelligent as my old professors, not that it was a great feat. This has happened in Russia with Alexander Dugin, because he would sell out and it was politically expedient for Putin to allow it. These Marxists can't be that intelligent because they are being used by the capitalist system like moaning eight cunted hooker. Most of the students themselves are A-political. If you cut the virus out trust me, it wouldn't grow back. They are not there because they are talented or clever , they are there because they are scum

I stand corrected! Che Guevara on a billboard? The cultural Marxist conspiracy theory has been vindicated! It's not that hipsters feel 'edgy' by purchasing items with his image plastered on them, it's instead proof of the elite's determination to usher in global communism.

It is a monsterous inversion - but the basic leftist values one associates with him: freedom, rights, eqiality, fraternitie, egalitarianism. It is like 'socialism with a human face', well this is capitalism with a human face, but the face is no different.

Also implyin you didn't watch that Che action movie and fap to it till you bled. Implying you don't buy mock soviet merchandise, implying you haven’t all been jewed hard.

What "incestuous relationship" are you referring to? Marxism hasn't been encouraged by liberalism. On the contrary, in the United States at least, it has been systematically undermined (research the history of the Red Scare, McCarthyism, and COINTELPRO). And we do have quasi-fascists in academia, e.g., Kevin MacDonald and Tamislav Sunić.

McCarthyism was a very brief backlash against the aforementioned communist element long before the cultural revolution that saw the senator deposed and his entire movement vilified. You must agree that almost all his work was undone shortly after this. McDonald and Sunic are not in their positions because of their political views but in spite of them – a drop in the ocean of career Marxists.

Right.. And who better to determine that than a pompous neo-fascist who has demonstrated a deficient understanding of both Marxism and left-wing nationalism, and hasn't even taken the time to review the content of this forum?

I am the one disappointed by the understanding shown here, you want to show me that Nationalism is consistant with leftism I am going to want to see it. You say I did not read your forum before hand - well link me to what I need to look at, and I will stop debating and come back in the future.

[capitalism_collapse]

Guest 777, was curious the overall Iron March member take on Palestinian statehood? Y'all identify as White Nationalists is that correct? Thanks.

[Confusion]

I find it peculiar that Guest777 does not get angry about Celtiberian trying to prove that he`s a sociopath.

Why does he go on and on after being slapped in the face with such a deadly insult? Has he no self-respect? To continue the debate at that point, is basically to agree that you are (Guest777) - indeed, a sociopath.

Who cares what a sociopath says? You have not even bothered to defend your self against my accusation - that your politics is merely a theoretical excuse to behave badly.

You are not interested in understanding politics or the world around you, you are just interested in inflating your ego and convincing your self that its okay to be evil.

[Egalitarian]

Y'all identify as White Nationalists is that correct?

I highly doubt they do, given the fact that the majority of them are mongrels, or, more appropriately, mischlinge, and identify as such...openly on their website.

[Red Aegis]

I highly doubt they do, given the fact that the majority of them are mongrels, or, more appropriately, mischlinge, and identify as such...openly on their website.

While that was funny it was irrelevant to the conversation and may lead people to believe that we care about that sort of thing, which we do not. The irony is not lost on me however. Basically, keep it on subject.

[NationalPhalanx]

Guest 777, was curious the overall Iron March member take on Palestinian statehood? Y'all identify as White Nationalists is that correct? Thanks.

Unless we are Israeli or Palestinian it is not our business. If I was Israeli I would support my own interests and if I was Palestinian I would support my own interests.

However forgive me if I am to sympathize with people more like me, regardless of the morals of the situation - in this case it would be the Israelis. I've met quite a few Israelis and I quite like them. I also sympathize with the Afrikaners as well. I am American, but in some circumstances I will show a kinship with westerners more like me.

I find it peculiar that Guest777 does not get angry about Celtiberian trying to prove that he`s a sociopath.

Why does he go on and on after being slapped in the face with such a deadly insult? Has he no self-respect? To continue the debate at that point, is basically to agree that you are (Guest777) - indeed, a sociopath.

Who cares what a sociopath says? You have not even bothered to defend your self against my accusation - that your politics is merely a theoretical excuse to behave badly.

You are not interested in understanding politics or the world around you, you are just interested in inflating your ego and convincing your self that its okay to be evil.

Perhaps it is because he does not care to acknowledge an ad hominem attack, which would derail the conversation.

[Red Aegis]

Unless we are Israeli or Palestinian it is not our business. If I was Israeli I would support my own interests and if I was Palestinian I would support my own interests.

However forgive me if I am to sympathize with people more like me, regardless of the morals of the situation - in this case it would be the Israelis. I've met quite a few Israelis and I quite like them. I also sympathize with the Afrikaners as well. I am American, but in some circumstances I will show a kinship with westerners more like me.

That is disgusting. It is similar to having the position that if your sibling is about to kill someone and take their property that you would support it since you "identify" more with them. How is that morally ethical in any sense?

[Guest777]

I find it peculiar that Guest777 does not get angry about Celtiberian trying to prove that he`s a sociopath.

Why does he go on and on after being slapped in the face with such a deadly insult? Has he no self-respect? To continue the debate at that point, is basically to agree that you are (Guest777) - indeed, a sociopath.

Who cares what a sociopath says? You have not even bothered to defend your self against my accusation - that your politics is merely a theoretical excuse to behave badly.

You are not interested in understanding politics or the world around you, you are just interested in inflating your ego and convincing your self that its okay to be evil.

Because I know he is just saying that because I am fascist - sociopathic is a code word for anti-fascist.

I have tried to rationally explain our position from a moral standpoint why certain things are justified - If that is considered wrong, well that is what I expect because we are talking about two opposing moralities. My position if you review the relevant sections of my responses is that both marxism and fascism are the same in this regard in building political soldiers who rationalise murder for an idea, and it is not like examples on both sides are wanting.

In my personal opinion dogooding and communist mentalities are far more dangerous for mankind in their ability to rationalise acts because they fight mostly for abstract and changing values like 'equality' rather than a group. The Psychopathic and mental tendencies of certain internet communists and expressing their clear intent to maim, torture, and murder for their humanitarian convictions is a subject that fascinates me.

Guest 777, was curious the overall Iron March member take on Palestinian statehood? Y'all identify as White Nationalists is that correct? Thanks.

We are not white nationalists as I have been trying to explain (look at the forum charter and previous posts), however I concede that we are probably all very racist (for the sake of argument). In reflecting on day to day issues, most of us including the Blacks, Asians, and Jews on the forum are White supremacists.

Israel is a divisive issue, but I don't think any of us care for Palestinian statehood - the advocacy of which by white nationalists is blatant hypocrisy.

That is disgusting. It is similar to having the position that if your sibling is about to kill someone and take their property that you would support it since you "identify" more with them. How is that morally ethical in any sense?

But that would be within a community, we do not recognise an 'international community'.

[Red Aegis]

But that would be within a community, we do not recognise an 'international community'.

That makes no sense.

[Guest777]

That makes no sense.

You make no sense, you pulled that analogy out of your arse. Yes your blood should not be above the community to which you belong, although in most cases a close relative is not expected to indite them in a court of law. In international relations this loyalty and responsibility doesn't extend beyond the state level - only to our group which is Europeans, we do not care about non Europeans. Why is this so difficult for you to comprihend?

[Red Aegis]

It is difficult to comprehend since it is a completely arbitrary stance. You are not standing for morality, but for some kinship which you have not proven exists. If you stood for morality you would stand against Israel's oppression of the palestinians and show support for non-fundamentalist arabs.

[Confusion]

Aha! So you don`t care about non-Europeans.

Libertarians are committed to caring only about them selves.
Communitarians care about their community
Nationalists care about their nation
Pan-Europeans, pan-germanics or just EU-patriots care about Europe
Humanitarians care about humans.

Human history, social organization have gone from clans, to nations - and now to continents? In the sphere of production, we have gone from hunter-gatherer-clans to guilds and feudal farm-systems, to ever-growing companies. And in the religious sphere, lots of small religions have been replaced with a few big ones. This means that the systems you are a part of and is expected to care about, gets bigger.

Maybe it is wrong to put up an artificial boarder for where ones care is supposed to stop? Since the natural trend is towards even bigger monopolies and social constructions anyway? It seems like a silly rule to me. "Nono! You must only care about the coca-cola company! If you help that pepsi-dude out of the lions jaws, you are so fired!" (The next year coca cola and pepsi fuses in order to survive the financial crisis, and the coca-cola man feels awfully sorry about not helping the pepsi-dude out, now that they are one merged and big happy family anyway)

[Red Aegis]

Make a thread about it. It is tangential to this discussion.

[Confusion]

I did, I put it in the cosmopolitan sub-section

[NationalPhalanx]

That is disgusting. It is similar to having the position that if your sibling is about to kill someone and take their property that you would support it since you "identify" more with them. How is that morally ethical in any sense?

I do not believe Israel's expansion into Palestinian territories is completely in their interest considering they technically do not need that land right now, and considering that the UN and Europe are eternal crybabies over them it will do nothing but harm to Israel. But I don't have a moral opposition - we did the same thing to the native Americans, I am not remotely ashamed of it. On top of that considering the current Islamic plague infesting Europe, I do not sympathize. At least Israel knows how to deal with them - white phosphorous.

If you stood for morality you would stand against Israel's oppression of the palestinians and show support for non-fundamentalist arabs.

Who the fuck cares? Israel could ethnically cleanse every single Arab and take over the entire middle east and I would not give a single shit - all my fucks would fly out the window.

Aha! So you don`t care about non-Europeans.

Well I do respect Asians. Some may potentially be friends, such as the Japanese.

[Red Aegis]

I do not believe Israel's expansion into Palestinian territories is completely in their interest considering they technically do not need that land right now, and considering that the UN and Europe are eternal crybabies over them it will do nothing but harm to Israel. But I don't have a moral opposition - we did the same thing to the native Americans, I am not remotely ashamed of it. On top of that considering the current Islamic plague infesting Europe, I do not sympathize. At least Israel knows how to deal with them - white phosphorous.


Who the fuck cares? Israel could ethnically cleanse every single Arab and take over the entire middle east and I would not give a single shit - all my fucks would fly out the window.

Uh-huh. I don't think that there is any reasoning with that kind of hate.

[Sponsored content]