The article is fine, but it doesn't name the Jew, which is highly embarassing. It lets the viewer with the impression that "political correctness" is something rooted out in our own problems, rather than an orchestrated Jewish attempt to eliminate competition by cunningly turning European civilization against itself.

You see, even the few unindoctrinated people left in Western world usually address small things such as niggers' apelike behavior, feminist whores, even though they are nothing but DIVERSIONS from the root problem: the complete unchallenged control Jews have over our information network (the media, the academic world), our public lives (the corrupt justice system, the degenerate jew-friendly politicians). This results into complete social modeling upon semitically-approved norms, including the self-censorship of mentioning Jews in any context other than apologetic. SO, the author of this article is either INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST (for not mentioning the causers out of fear) or INSUFICIENTLY REMOVED FROM SEMITICAL CORRECTNESS. Niggers, feminists, faggots and other degenerates are but SIMPTOMS of the ILLNESS the JEW causes while feeding from the wounds of his host.

I haven't read the article yet, but I don't think Marxism is directly related to multiculturalism, and vice versa. North Korea and China are communist, and they don't have a problem with the multicult or race mixing. Also, from what I've read on here and other WN forums the Whites in the former USSR were less likely to race mix during communism than they do now. In the communist USSR there weren't million of White women being used as prostitutes in Western Europe and the middle east as there is now.

Niggers, feminists, faggots and other degenerates are but SIMPTOMS of the ILLNESS the JEW causes while feeding from the wounds of his host.

... and he used to be such a nice, polite lad.

"In the communist USSR there weren't million of White women being used as prostitutes in Western Europe and the middle east as there is now."

This just shows that capitalisms profit-over-everything attitude must go.

Compare the non-white percentage of former communist countries with the percentage of capitalist ones.

Communism as a failed economical system had to adjust to the wishes of the people if it intented to stay at power.White people everywhere are normally racist and xenophobic.

In capitalist systems,the various goverments just didnt care much as long as the material and social standard of the white population was high enough. Communist goverments on the other hand had to listen to the will of the people.Had communism been as anti-racist as capitalism is,then it would not last longer then 1960.

Our white race has a serious defection in our character.Namely white greed. Capitalism uses this white greed to generate huge amounts of wealth.In a way capitalism exploits white greed.

White men managed to amount great wealth thanks to the freedoms capitalism gives.While generating unknown wealth for themselves they destroyed the enviroment around them.

Let me explain:

The white employer in his greed,run uncheck because of the freedoms of capitalism,uses the cheap mexican labor to generate great amounts of wealth for himself.But even though he succeds in becoming rich,he at the same time destroys the society around him.Because this cheap labor has come to stay and is not going to leave.They will remain and infest the country.

It is therefore important to seek a Third Way beyond capitalism and communism.A system which on the one hand lets the white man use his creativity but on the other hand controls the white mans greed through socialist measures.

This "third way" can only be National Socialism.

Communism was only "multicultural" in the sense that Marx incorrectly asserted that the world proletariat was the same all over the world. He somewhat correctly asserted that it was capitalism that destroyed national and racial character, which of course has been proven in the post-war/contemporary era. However, Communism's failing is that is makes no effort to restore what it claims capitalism destroyed- e.g. the family unit, national identity, etc.

It was getting rid of the "For Christ, King and Country" ideal - that's where it all went wrong.

"Some have argued that it is unfair to describe Stalin's regime as "totalitarian," pointing out that one man, no matter how ruthlessly he exercised power, could not control all the functions of the state. But, in fact, he didn't have to. Totalitarianism was much more than state terror, censorship, and concentration camps; it was a state of mind in which the very idea of a private opinion or point of view had been destroyed. The totalitarian propagandist forces people to believe that slavery is freedom, squalor is bounty, ignorance is knowledge, and that a rigidly closed society is the most open in the world. And once enough people are made to think this way, it is functionally totalitarian even if a single dictator does not personally control everything.

Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, [Jewish] success is [due to their cruel] oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is "tolerance and diversity." Indeed, the multicultural revolution works subversion everywhere, just as Communist revolutions did: judicial activism undermines the rule of law; "tolerance" weakens the conditions that make real tolerance possible; universities, which should be havens of free inquiry, practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets.

Marxism is a powerful idea because it appeals to (white) people's sense of fairness. It offers up a view of the world that explains disparities between groups in terms that don't offend the non-achieving section of society (ie it's all because of the white man's oppression that women and minorities don't fare equally well in the work place.

However, Marxism is a totally inefficient system that cannot ever work, and has never worked anywhere. Although communist leaders wanted to achieve multi-racial, multicultural empires, in practice this never happened because there was no economic incentive for niggers and other darkies to go and live in Eastern Europe or China. They only want to come to the wealthy west.

So, what the Marxists seem to have resigned themselves to is working within a Capitalist system, while trying to achieve something as close to Marxism as they can possibly get.

Feminists and multiculturalists may not actually subscribe to the economic theories of "marxism", but their rise in the world was definitely facilitated by the Marxist movement in the 20th C.

Actually the real reason why non-whites didn't flood into Europe is because with the Soviet socialist economy nobody would import third-worlders for cheap labor- that was contrary to their socialist practice. Also, the Soviet Union practiced economic development in the territories of the former Russian empire so non-white residents there had no reason to leave home for work.