|
November 25th, 2012 | #1 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 78
|
Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism-Juche
I want to finish my short reign of posting on vnnforum to make it clear that I have gone from my old phora.net days of being a Stalinist sympathizer to a full out Orthodox Marxist-Leninist who studies Marx, Lenin, Mao, Stalin etc. and reads their writings.
Officially becoming a Marxist-Leninist was something that took a while because I had to reconcile different theories against each other. Anyways, now I can oppose American colonial wars, oppose Israel, question cosmopolitan capitalism and defend the working class without having to be seen as some sort of wannabe without a philosophy. I recommend that people who have collectivist tendencies but oppose the lunacy of the white nationalist movement start actually reading Marx, Lenin and Stalin and realize that there are superior ideologies out there. You don't need white nationalism to justify your political dissident positions. |
November 25th, 2012 | #2 |
Master Race
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: neo-Weimar JewSA
Posts: 1,568
|
Niggers are still eating each other over in Africa. You do know that, right? And we're supposed to "collectivize" with them?
Take your Judeo-Marxism and pound it up your fuckin ass.
__________________
"What are they? A religion, a race, a criminal conspiracy?" - Craig 'Chain' Cobb on the jews |
November 26th, 2012 | #3 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 78
|
Ways in which Marxism is better than white nationalism:
-It opposes Zionism on principle as a form of imperialism that takes advantage of previous sufferings in a class divided society, a propaganda machine that misguides victim-indoctrinated Jews and creates secondary victims out of Palestinians. White nationalism only opposes Zionism based on a grievance over the alleged non-white racial origins of Jews, which I would disagree with because of my adherence to classic anthropology. -It analyzes the mode of production and ties ideology to real life in a materialist sense. Read on dialectical materialism. Marx's observations are often relevant in both micro-economic and macro-economic situations. -True Marxism is internationalism, which means a global analysis of the capitalist problem. This does not imply anarchism or open boarders. -Marxism actually would disenfranchise powerful Jews, while Hitler just killed Jewish "Next door neighbors" while the big powerful Jews simply left the country or passed as Aryans. Hitler pretended to change society. Marxism actually would and wouldn't hard INNOCENT people on the street in the process. -Marxism is sane enough to realize that Jews are not the only problem and that every person with Jewish ancestry isn't a Meir Kahane. Jewish supremacists feed on capitalism. (I am not implying that capitalism is okay if not for Jews) -Marx openly believed in racial differences, but didn't base his own philosophy on it. -The problem with Marx's theories were corrected by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-Sung. The problems with Hitler's theories were never corrected by the Strasser brothers. |
November 27th, 2012 | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
|
Dr. Oliver 1966
Quote
All America Must Know The Terror That Is Upon Us [by Revilo P. Oliver] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALL AMERICA MUST KNOW THE TERROR THAT IS UPON US You have doubtless seen the recent and cleverly advertised book entitled What We Must Know About Communism by Harry and Bonaro Overstreet. It is a strange book. I cannot take time to analyze it or to discuss the possible motives for the authors' silence about the most important parts of the vast web of subversion that extends from the humblest primary school to the highest court in our land. But I shall limit myself to matters that the Overstreets ignore or evade. And I can give only the most perfunctory summary of a few selected aspects of the terror that is upon us. I first encountered Communists and their allies, the "liberal intellectuals," when I was a lad in college, and I then formed the impression of them that so many people of my generation still carry in their minds. The pro-Communists among my fellows were so childish and so ignorant! Many of them, to be sure, were glib enough in parroting the phrases and arguments they had heard or read, but they obviously belong to the group that worked hard only to avoid hard intellectual work. They talked, and they seemed to believe, Marxism, a crude and absurd superstition that can be taken seriously by no one who has any knowledge of human history and Occidental culture. There were also a few members of the faculty who were obviously pro-Communist—remember that this was years and years ago, and the college in which I was an undergraduate was not so progressive as others even at that time—a few members of the faculty, I say, but they were all teaching the "science" of "education" or some similar bunk that was obviously a fraud on the public and an insult to the intelligence of an educated man. My friends and I thought the Commies, young and old, very funny. We had all heard, of course, of what had happened in Russia, but we did not know then what everyone knows now, that the Bolshevik butchery in Russia had been organized in the United States, financed from the United States, and carried out by a gang of 1700 disciplined assassins, most of whom came from New York City.[1] And in any case Russia was a distant and barbarous country, and nothing could be more ludicrous than a suggestion that what happened there could conceiveably happen here ... Unquote Unquote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t. In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb. I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light. Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people. That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas? Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness. After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too. Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”. When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakespeare seems to have felt the same kind of repulsion when he created the vengeful lawyer Shylock, and Dickens when he created the parasitic master-thief Fagin. Classic “anti-Semitic” stereotypes, but I knew that stereotypes aren’t always wrong. If anti-Semitic stereotypes aren’t always wrong, then there’s an obvious conclusion: neither is anti-Semitism. Gentiles are sometimes right to dislike and distrust Jews. After all, at the same time I was noticing something else: the massive over-representation of Jews, not just among politicians and journalists, but among crooked businessmen too. In fact, among very, very crooked businessmen, the ones responsible for really big frauds at Gentile expense. Men like Robert Maxwell (né Hoch), Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky, and Michael Milken. And, on a slightly lesser scale, Ernest Saunders, who finagled an early release from prison because he was coming down with Alzheimer’s, that well-known incurable brain disease from which no-one ever recovers. Only Saunders managed to confound medical science and recover from it. Slimy. Hypocritical. Crooked. In a word: Jewish. But I didn’t take the final step, the step to full recognition of the Jewish problem, until I watched the reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I’m not a Christian and I have little sympathy with modern Christianity, but I had a lot of sympathy for Mel Gibson as I watched the hysterical campaign against him. The hysterical, well-organized, international campaign by the slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jew Abe Foxman, Head of the Anti-Defamation League, and his fellow slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jews around the world. They didn’t like something and they were moving heaven and earth to get it stopped. And what was it they didn’t like? A movie about an event at the heart of European art, literature, and culture: the crucifixion of Christ. So here was another obvious conclusion: Jews hate European art, literature, and culture. In other words, Jews hate White civilization and the White race who created it. After that, it all fell into place. I finally recognized that Jews weren’t just slimy, hypocritical, and crooked, but actively dangerous too. If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the survival of the White race – mass immigration, feminism, multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights – I realized that Jews were behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and had been doing so for decades. Finally, I had seen the light. Finally, I had gotten smart and recognized the Jewish problem, the problem that even dumb Gentiles subconsciously recognize when they give nicknames like “Hannibal Lecter” and “Prince of Darkness” and “Dracula” to Jewish politicians. Jews really do want to eat us, and steal our souls, and suck our blood, and it’s about time we started firing a few silver bullets. LUKE O’FARRELL http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/loathing.html
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most? We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction. -Charles A. Lindbergh http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp Last edited by America First; November 27th, 2012 at 04:45 AM. |
November 27th, 2012 | #5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Oh look a retarded leftist: hammer time.
Its been a while since I unloaded both barrels against a Marxist so don't cry... too much. Quote:
It can oppose nationalist Zionism on the principle that it is the imperialistic tool of the bourgeois but in doing so it has to be careful not to 'label' the jewish people as ipso facto Zionists as otherwise it is committing the cardinal leftist sin of blaming the superstructure created by the bourgeois (i.e. 'racism'/'sexism') as opposed to identifying the base (i.e. econocentric/materialist causes via the dialectical [Marxist 'science'] method). Basically Marxism blames a nonsense abstract (i.e. 'Zionists') without explaining why 'Zionist' is somehow different from 'Jew' ('Christian Zionism' is not actually 'Zionism' per se but rather a fellow-travelling position which can be held across many different blends of Christianity for example) when the simple fact is that Zionism is intertwined with being jewish (culturally/religiously/biologically) given that every facet has frequently held precedents in it (historically) for Zionism. Quote:
Note that the CP line on Zionism has long been confused between whether it was a bourgeois ideology or a proletarian ideology. For example the issue of whether the Bund were socialists or nationalists in Marxism in the years before and during the first 10-20 years of the USSR. Hell Marxists themselves still haven't decided. Quote:
Or even better: why on earth did Maoist China try to invade Vietnam in 1979 after Vietnam (sponsored by the USSR) invaded Cambodia to put an end to the Maoist Khmer Rouge in 1978? Did they get confused by each others increasingly convoluted dialectical expositions or something rather than 'waging class war' on the 'imperialistic USA'? 'Champions of the Proletariat' my arse: more like Marxism is a ready-made system of intellectual justification for third world nationalism, which allows it to gain supporters among the intellectual nincompoops that proliferate among the left and liberal wannabe 'class warrior' brigade. Quote:
Quote:
Forget that bit of their history did you? Quote:
Quote:
Or are you a gradualist (a-la Lassalle and Bebel) [right deviationist in Stalinist parlance] as opposed to a revolutionist (as the former is non grievance-based while the latter is explicitly grievance-based]? Quote:
Quote:
There is classic (racialistic/hereditarian) anthropology and then there is radical anthropology (egalitarian/environmental): the latter only really came into being in the 1920s/1930s while the former dates back to the founding of antropology. As a rule of thumb social/cultural anthropologists are radicals, while physical/biological/forensic anthropologists are hereditarians. It is a similar split in psychology: those who deal in the hard science bit of tend to agree with us and those who deal in 'ideas/concepts' tend to agree with you. Quote:
Remember that Engels in 'Socialism: Utopian or Scientific' and 'Origin of the Family' (as well as the 'Peasant War in Germany' much as Marx did with 'The Class Struggles in France') spent a lot of time tying the evolution of the means of production to the evolution of society and the nature of man. Well he wrote largely in the context of a non-evolutionary understanding of pre-history (so he assumed socialism was possible because it was supposed practiced in ancient times) and proposed a mechanistic view of humans (i.e. rooted in economics and philosophy [i.e. scholasticism through the lens of the rationalist left vis-a-vis Saint Simon, Kant and Rousseau among others]) which was superseded in his own lifetime by the knowledge that humans had evolved over a long period of time from tiny organisms as opposed to just 'being human' from time immemorial (which was the base of Engels' and Marx's economic/philosophical view [which remember came from Hegel's justification of right in relation to Christianity and the Prussian State]). This means that Engels and Marx in your comprehension of the world were only seeking to measure points along two sets of axes rather than understanding what those two axes were. If you want it put even simpler: economic realities express macro-human behaviour and also inform individual belief systems which can create the climate for larger behaviour changes, but those behaviour changes and economic realities operate in a set potential (i.e. access to finite resources, potential productivity, techological advancement and so forth) which are in turn controlled in their expression by the biological potential of your population (i.e. if you population contains more people able and motivated enough to become inventors, research scientists, entertainers, mechanics and so on it will become stronger). Basically Marxists 'forget' a frame and assume explicitly and implicitly that all humans have equal potential (which any schoolboy knows isn't true) and that given the same proverbial 'opportunities' they will succeed (hence 'radical' anthropology). However this has proven time again by empirical experiment and simple historical observation to not be so as there are always weak and strong members of the group. After all if Marxism was correct then why was Africa so weak before the 'evil white man' arrived (and yes it was before you bring out the supposed 'great African civilizations')? The strong adapt and breed while the weak don't adapt so well and don't breed (or breed less), which in turn acts as the major selection vector for the next generation in much the same way as you breed dogs for temperament. In much the same way there is class war internally among nations, religious groups, races, corporations, communist parties (look up the concept of 'parachuting' in Marxist parliamentary history) and so on, which acts as selection vector based on the more fundamental selection vector of inter biological group struggle (i.e. race war) which is represented in races/biological groups/genetic clusters (even families if you think about it) battling over shared institutions (e.g. the UN/Catholic Church/Third International), resources ('imperialism') and so on. Nationalism unlike Marxism endorses both the materialistic vectors (class war which operates inside race war) as opposed to concentrating on the superstructure (class war/economics/philosophy) rather than the base (race war/biology/evolution). Basically Nationalists are the true materialists who link their ideology to the hard reality: the Marxists are just fantasists who think it is enough to claim that you do and make excuses when your ideology fails to explain or predict things (which it would have to do to be 'scientific'). Quote:
If you fancy it we can discuss what you understand by 'dialectical materialism' as most Marxist don't comprehend the meaning of 'dialectic' very well (its more a stock rhetorical justification as opposed to a meaningful process to them). Quote:
Oh but this means Marx got it horribly wrong: didn't he? Shame that. Oh did I mention that Marx was himself a hypocritical bourgeois rentier and capitalist exploiter? I've got far more sympathy for Engels as the man was a prodigy for hard work and has now been credited with a large section of what was previously believed that Marx wrote (e.g. the Tribune articles). Suppose they don't teach that in 'Marxism Made Simple': do they? Quote:
Go on: I can't wait for your hilarious ideological fumbling on this topics. Quote:
You are focusing on the superstructure not the base: or don't you believe in the triumph of empirical science over bourgeois phantoms? Quote:
Hint: it doesn't mean 'anarchy' you moron. Quote:
If that be so then what does niggers and spics murdering their way across the nation is merely an expression of 'class consciousness' against their 'capitalist exploiters' as they as members of the proletariat/sub-proletariat attacking members of the 'bourgeois' are they not? Quote:
Quote:
Dead jews... open a bottle of the best on me Adolf! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Read about the early history of the Russian revolution and the hilarity of Russian Marxists/socialist 'experts' trying to run factories and workshops. They couldn't and I rather doubt that a century of Marxist failure to produce a viable and prosperous state (which is after all its central promise to the proletariat) without outside support is going to change because a bunch of overweight 'revolutionaries' with PhDs think otherwise. Or to quote a favourite aphorism of mine: 'My education has made be distrustful of language. A gun means what it says.' Or put another way: all the fine words and revolutionary rhetoric mean nothing as they settle nothing, but a bullet to the head tends to settle matters and no amount of dialectic can change the material reality. Quote:
It is kill or be killed. *Waits a moment for the commie to make a decision* *Boom!* You're dead you god damn red. Quote:
Why aren't you dealing with the material here after all Marxism is supposedly about being very specific and verifiable rather than wishy-washy generalisms: no? Quote:
Significant difference you might not have noticed given that your reading of the Marxist 'classics' seems to have informed you little about their ideology other than the basic 'Marxism 101' classes and books I've seen around. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Who are you trying to kid: a concussed duckling? Quote:
Incidentally you mean Otto Strasser I assume. He was a fool who was rightly destroyed by Goebbels as he was infected with the idiotic notion that people want 'enlightenment' where-as Goebbels understood the reality is that the people want entertainment. I also doubt you've read anything much of what he wrote.
__________________
Last edited by Karl Radl; November 27th, 2012 at 02:48 PM. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
November 28th, 2012 | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
|
Quote:
Hitler pretended to change society. Well actually he did: just about everybody concedes that. The difference is that leftists, liberals and the 'conservatives' of today and yesterday hate how he changed it, because he dealt with reality as opposed to their fantasy view of the world. Unquote Haaa,haaa,haa ! Excellent post, and if uncle Wolf where here you would receive an award from him personally. Thank you for the quality post !
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most? We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction. -Charles A. Lindbergh http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp |
November 28th, 2012 | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: knee deep and surrounded
Posts: 1,764
|
Quote:
has nothing to do with real life it analyzed nothing; it bullshits about everything (how jewish, eh?) dialectical materialism= judaized bullshit true marxism= international rabble rousing mixed with mass murder -Marxism actually would disenfranchise powerful Jews- you are delusional. marx was a JEW in the employ of "powerful jews". marxism is the epitome of the phrase "rabid insanity". marxism is jewish bigotry put into practice. the problem with the problems of marx' theories is that they WERE put into practice by lenin, trotsky,(aka-lev davidovich bronstein) stalin, mao, pol pot and kim (was really mentally) ill-sung. freshman year at college,eh? you are not going to survive here for long. don't waste your time at college unless you are going to study the sciences-engineering, biological, geology, medical etc., the rest is bull shit.
__________________
"OY,VEY ALREADY!!" Dr. William Pierce Last edited by confederate; November 28th, 2012 at 10:05 AM. |
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|