I really don't like what I've been reading from you and Slovjanski.

You are not alone.

I don't think any brand of communism, brand it what you like, is worthy of an alliance with white racialists.

I think the question should be asked by the Communists]
You seem to be clinging to jewish communism the way many whites still cling to jewish christianity.

I have learned, to much embarrassment, that Communism is not nearly as "Jewish" as WNs would like one to believe with their outdated and inaccurate sources.

It's on behalf of the jewish creed that millions upon millions of Ukrainians and Russians were starved or butchered in the soviet union.

Sorry but those numbers simply aren't supported by reality.

Stalin, whom you seem to be speaking favorably of, used collectivization partially as a means of undermining Ukrainian nationalism,

First of all, collectivisation was implemented because most of the country consisted of peasants, with only a small minority possessing any equipment or land at all. The rich peasants exploited the poor peasants through usury and other schemes(the Bolshevik party allowed capitalism in agriculture until Stalin's collectivisation). The population growth demanded that more food be produced and produced efficiently.

As for the "Ukrainian" famine-genocide, it is simply a hoax. The paltry "evidence" that was used to support this claim has always been laughable and much of if was debunked back in the 30s.

and it would be twisted reasoning to assume that this georgian (evidence suggests he too might have been a jew and married jewesses 3 times) did this in a bid to strengthen the Russian ethnos.

Well clearly he did]
Hamper Class Struggle? WTF? Class struggle was nothing more than a seed planted by the jew to sow envy and discord within white nation-states and pit white people against each other.

No, class struggle is the struggle between various classes of society to achieve dominance. The Bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class itself because it overthrew the old system of feudalism.

Feminism, the destruction of the family, the international brotherhood of mankind have all followed in its wake.

Feminism is not the product of Communism. Communism's views toward women were often twisted by social democrats and New Left liberals to embrace feminism. In the time before Communism, women worked long hours, received less pay, and were subject to many occupational hazards(see the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire in New York City). Clearly that's not very good for FAMILIES is it? The Bolshevik revolution doubled the life-expectancy of the population, had special protections for mothers, gave awards for mothers with multiple children, and drastically reduced infant mortality.

You guys sound like a couple of communists pining for the good ole days. Alex is probably an eastern German and Slovjanski is obviously from behind the former iron curtain as well.

Nope, I'm from Phoenix but I live behind that "Iron Curtain" now.

Personally, I think the communists got off way too easily in the east. They should have all been treated not as enemies of the state, but as enemies of their people and received the same treatment they dished out to so many others while they rode high on the hog back in the day.

When capitalists ride high on the hog, nobody gets anything. When some Communists did, the people at least had free full education, health care, dirt cheap rent, and public transport, among other things.

Furthermore, the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe has destroyed millions of white lives- and that "cultural rennaissance" everyone was expecting never took place.

Sorry, you're not my kind of people.

I suggest you take some time to study the actual views of Communism without preconceived notions. I did recently and it certainly changed my perspective.

Originally Posted by Ronen
Right. And we should do what? Nationalize and aim for liquidation of classes and aim for one undivided plebian proletariat class? Give me a break. Since you've invoked Hitler, is this what he aimed for? Obviously not since the Strasser brothers didn't get too far in the Third Reich.

Yes,yes and indeed yes he did.You should know that Germany of the time was seriously divided through class and religious lines.So overcoming the class bounderies is indeed an ideal of NS.Since you wont beleive what i say and i assume you havent read "Mein Kampf"

I actually have read Mein Kampf. Hitler mentions the proletarianization of the working class with scorn. His point was that the class struggle was fomented, as he put it, by the bourgeoisie and the working class both reading the same jewish newspapers and being artificially pitted against each other. He clearly felt that the working class was undervalued because of the way the bourgeoisie had been manipulated by the jews to view them this way. This is a far cry from advocating the elimination of all classes and having a single society comprised solely of the proletariat. When Hitler referenced class division, it was in the sense of advocating social justice for all, not eliminating division by eliminating classes.

As for nationalization, one of the 25 points of the NSDAP was to eliminate usury by abolishing income earned not through labor, but through speculation. The other was to break-up the monopoly cartels and trusts which had squelched the entrepreneurial creative spirit by temporarily nationalizing them. Yet Hitler himself said that nationalizing big industry was Marxist and that it was best left in the hands of those capable of running it, not government.

On dealing with communists i have stated my position clear enough.I dont wish the death of any white man/woman only because of their "wrong" worldview.And no i dont beleive NS and bolshevism are antipodes but two different anti-capitalistic ideologies competing with eachother for the power in the state.

In fact, capitalism and communism were both rightly regarded by Hitler as tentacles of the same materialistic jewish hydra. The alleged opposition of the two to each other is superficial. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. International finance capitalism finds its counterpart in the internationalization of the proletariat, the break-down of national boundaries and the nation-state, the movement of capital, goods, and peoples across borders.

I'm favouring the nationalization of the big businness so to speak.The nationalizations of stock corporations,especially the multinationals.

And...

And no i dont want to nationalize small-and middle-sized businness.Maybe this can be done in the far future (always depending on the technological level,the general world situation and the maturity of the working masses) but today it would simply fail.

...how it is you can claim you're not a communist after this is astonishing!

I dont give up white people,no matter how stupid they are.Always hoping that people like yourselve will smarten up.

The fact is you're not NS. The distinction is very clear. National Socialism sees race as the creative driving force in history. Bolshevism's dialectic materialism sees the driving force as class struggle. The two are in no way compatible no matter how much you would wish them to be so. You're entitled to your worldview, but it pretty much renders you anti-NS, so you're probably better off in the opposition forum.

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear." [Mein Kampf, Ch. 2]

I'm not sure what to make of the conversation. I don't know whether I got through at all, or whether this just amplifies the extreme lala land whites live in.

It sounds to me like you got through to him somewhat, or planted seeds that will take time for him to figure out. He even offered his view that they can convert Mexcrement and Arabs apologetically, referring to it negatively as "possibly idealistic" showing that he knows himself how unrealistic that view is. He is trying to sell something that some jew sold him, but it's something he has to actively convince himself that he himself buys, because he recognizes instinctively the unreality of it. It sounds like a great conversation in which you politely blasted through the thin veneer of this kid's vague, nebulous, and weakly held beliefs. Good job.

I think the question should be asked by the Communists]I wouldn't blame them given WN's total lack of coherent ideology and political success over its entire period of existence.

This is a cheap and dirty shot. Did you every consider that in today's media age the reason WNs haven't succeeded is hugely due to the slightly negative press coverage by the media jews that we've had to struggle to overcome? By contrast, how many movies or documentaries have been made about Lenin, Stalin, life under communism, the bolshevik revolution, etc., as compared to the ceaseless propaganda against NS? Do you think there might be a larger reason why Che Guevara and hammer and sickle t-shirts are "cool" yet the swastika remains taboo? You've show your true color right out of the starting block with that remark, pinko.

I have learned, to much embarrassment, that Communism is not nearly as "Jewish" as WNs would like one to believe with their outdated and inaccurate sources.

Which part of that thesis do you have a problem with? Here is just one of many links which indicate communism is quite jewish indeed.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/commun.htm

Please present or cite any sources you might have as a rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Ronen
It's on behalf of the jewish creed that millions upon millions of Ukrainians and Russians were starved or butchered in the soviet union.

Sorry but those numbers simply aren't supported by reality.

First of all, collectivisation was implemented because most of the country consisted of peasants, with only a small minority possessing any equipment or land at all. The rich peasants exploited the poor peasants through usury and other schemes(the Bolshevik party allowed capitalism in agriculture until Stalin's collectivisation). The population growth demanded that more food be produced and produced efficiently.

As for the "Ukrainian" famine-genocide, it is simply a hoax. The paltry "evidence" that was used to support this claim has always been laughable and much of if was debunked back in the 30s

Yes, population growth demanded it. That must be why the Ukrainian intelligentsia had to be murdered as well, so that the population could be thinned out a little more and food produced more efficiently.

The following two articles were written about this alleged hoaxing of the Ukrainian famine.

http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html
http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam4.html

You'll note that both articles were posted on a "progressive" website, and that the articles were written having in mind that the "crimes" of nazi Germany were being minimized or at least relativized by those pointing out the crimes of the criminal soviet regime.

"Nationalism Leads to Fascism"

and

"In 1935, a certain "Thomas Walker" published a five-part story on the famine in the chain of newspapers owned by the fanatical anti-Communist and pro-fascist tycoon William Randolph Hearst. Accompanying the series were photographs, supposedly of starving Ukrainian peasants, which Walker claimed he had taken personally. In March 1935, Louis Fischer, then a pro-Soviet reporter for The Nation, expressed some doubts about "Walker's" photos: "Mr Walker's photographs could easily date back to the Volga famine in 1921."

Nice to know your cozying up to jewish communists who by contrast want to minimize their own crimes while constantly bemoaning those of the Germans. We all pick our sides. You've picked yours, and I really fail to see what it has to do with WN.

Well clearly he did]

Leaving aside the etymology of his real last name which some claim to mean literally, "son of a jew", there is plenty of evidence of the jewish preponderance in the highest ranks.

http://wsi.matriots.com/ListofBolsheviks.html
http://www.angelfire.com/az3/goyim/communism

"Interestinly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin himself: "National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30)."

As far as the masses agreeing about Stalin, the masses also now agree that Hitler was a homosexual prostitute, a paper-hanger, a celibate, a jew, that he fucked his own niece, that he was a scatologist, etc., etc. And yes, in some cases the misguided masses have re-elected some of their executioners back into power in some of the former eastern bloc nations.

No, class struggle is the struggle between various classes of society to achieve dominance. The Bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class itself because it overthrew the old system of feudalism.

You CANNOT embrace this dialectic materialistic view and remain NS. It is a simple contradiction in terms.

Feminism is not the product of Communism. Communism's views toward women were often twisted by social democrats and New Left liberals to embrace feminism. In the time before Communism, women worked long hours, received less pay, and were subject to many occupational hazards(see the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire in New York City). Clearly that's not very good for FAMILIES is it? The Bolshevik revolution doubled the life-expectancy of the population, had special protections for mothers, gave awards for mothers with multiple children, and drastically reduced infant mortality.

You're confusing simple labor laws with feminism. Feminism was the transference of the idea of class struggle into the realm of gender struggle. As such, feminism's proxy pedigree is communism, and its proponents were jewish female leftists.

When capitalists ride high on the hog, nobody gets anything. When some Communists did, the people at least had free full education, health care, dirt cheap rent, and public transport, among other things.

Furthermore, the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe has destroyed millions of white lives- and that "cultural rennaissance" everyone was expecting never took place.

Astounding! It isn't capitalism that has destroyed white lives in eastern europe (though predatory capitalism hasn't helped), but the communist regimes which sapped the strength, initiative, and creativity of its peoples and broke their spirit. They had a joke in those countries under communism: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." The east Germans are now the laughing stock of Germany and if you ask any eastern european who has been to eastern Germany lately, he will tell you that communism has managed to achieve the unthinkable- to create slackers out of Germans. The German, proverbial for his industry, energy, disciplined hard work, is now in the east for all intents and purposes a shell of himself. No doubt due to the wonderful system where he "had free full education, health care, dirt cheap rent, and public transport, among other things." Yes, and the Stasi breathing down his neck as well.

May I suggest you take some time to study the actual views of Communism without preconceived notions. I did recently and it certainly changed my perspective

May I suggest you stop allowing yourself to be duped by jewish abstractions that have already been proven a failure in the grand laboratory that was eastern Europe. You must be aware that one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again when it has already been proven to be a failure. In the meanwhile, though I know you're a senior member on these forums, perhaps you should continue expounding on your recent epiphany on the virtues of bolshevism in the opposition forum along with Alex. Just a polite suggestion.

Take care.

When some Communists did, the people at least had free full education, health care, dirt cheap rent, and public transport, among other things.

Slovjanski&#8217] ?v=0[/URL]
?v=0
?v=0

A pic of Slovjanski’s dream car, for which he would have had to wait 10 years for delivery.
?v=0

More dream realestate
http://static.flickr.com/52/126943959_8fa73a5eb9_t.jp g" target="_blank">http://static.flickr.com/52/126943959_8fa73a5eb9_t.jp g"/> &imgrefurl= http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/plattenbau/&h=73&w=100&sz=11&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=u5zlldwOqTcoMM:&tbnh=60&tbnw=82&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dost%2Bdeutscher%2Bplattenbau%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

I actually have read Mein Kampf. Hitler mentions the proletarianization of the working class with scorn. His point was that the class struggle was fomented, as he put it, by the bourgeoisie and the working class both reading the same jewish newspapers and being artificially pitted against each other. He clearly felt that the working class was undervalued because of the way the bourgeoisie had been manipulated by the jews to view them this way. This is a far cry from advocating the elimination of all classes and having a single society comprised solely of the proletariat. When Hitler referenced class division, it was in the sense of advocating social justice for all, not eliminating division by eliminating classes.

You got Hitler all wrong.The existing exploitation was cemented by the jewish press of the left and the right.Thereby not allowing a real solution to the class problem.This is what Hitler meant.
And the solution he proposed was:

When Hitler referenced class division, it was in the sense of advocating social justice...

We are in agreement here.Social justice for the working masses is something i've demanded in almost ecery post of mine.

...but

not eliminating division by eliminating classes.

Social justice for the working masses will eventually lead to the elimination of the class bounderies.

As for nationalization, one of the 25 points of the NSDAP was to eliminate usury by abolishing income earned not through labor, but through speculation. The other was to break-up the monopoly cartels and trusts which had squelched the entrepreneurial creative spirit by temporarily nationalizing them. Yet Hitler himself said that nationalizing big industry was Marxist and that it was best left in the hands of those capable of running it, not government.

I have already anwered that one in a previous post of mine.

In fact, capitalism and communism were both rightly regarded by Hitler as tentacles of the same materialistic jewish hydra. The alleged opposition of the two to each other is superficial. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. International finance capitalism finds its counterpart in the internationalization of the proletariat, the break-down of national boundaries and the nation-state, the movement of capital, goods, and peoples across borders.

First you got Hitler wrong and now Marx.

"the break-down of national boundaries and the nation-state, the movement of capital, goods, and peoples across borders" are the products of "International finance capitalism" not their "counterpart".
A fact that becomes obvious when one realizes that these things happened/happen in capitalist and not communist societies.

Not sure what you mean with "internationalization of the proletariat" but i guess you got that one wrong too.Please clarify to me what you mean by that.

And no i dont want to nationalize small-and middle-sized businness.Maybe this can be done in the far future (always depending on the technological level,the general world situation and the maturity of the working masses) but today it would simply fail.

...how it is you can claim you're not a communist after this is astonishing!

What part of it do you not understand? Maybe future aryan generations would want to socialize their entire economy for one reason or the other.I just said that such an utopia would be unrealistic today.

The fact is you're not NS. The distinction is very clear. National Socialism sees race as the creative driving force in history. Bolshevism's dialectic materialism sees the driving force as class struggle. The two are in no way compatible no matter how much you would wish them to be so.

Again you are putting words in my mouth i never said.

Of course NS sees race as the creative driving force in history but at the same time doesnt ignore the social realities through time and seeks to end the exploitation on members of its own race.

You're entitled to your worldview, but it pretty much renders you anti-NS, so you're probably better off in the opposition forum.

This coming from someone i have to explain what NS and Marxism are all about... go figure.

Hitler wouldnt allow clowns around him who were constantely trying to torpedize his alliance with Stalin.

A red-brown alliance especially in eastern Europe is the way for NS to rise to actual power.With your reactionery poison you are harming the NS movement.

I understand that this is a free speech forum and you are entitled to your reactionery worldview,but in my opinion it pretty much renders you anti-NS, so you're probably better off in the opposition forum.

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear." [Mein Kampf, Ch. 2]

Totaly irrelevant.

Astounding! It isn't capitalism that has destroyed white lives in eastern europe (though predatory capitalism hasn't helped), but the communist regimes which sapped the strength, initiative, and creativity of its peoples and broke their spirit. They had a joke in those countries under communism: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." The east Germans are now the laughing stock of Germany and if you ask any eastern european who has been to eastern Germany lately, he will tell you that communism has managed to achieve the unthinkable- to create slackers out of Germans. The German, proverbial for his industry, energy, disciplined hard work, is now in the east for all intents and purposes a shell of himself. No doubt due to the wonderful system where he "had free full education, health care, dirt cheap rent, and public transport, among other things." Yes, and the Stasi breathing down his neck as well.

It is accepted as a fact by almost everyone in Germany that the introduction of capitalism did lead to the high unemployment in east Germany.The big and all powerfull multinationals simply destroyed the regional economy and overflowed the market with their crap while ousting the local and regional products.Not able to withstand the competition with the multinational corporations they had to close which resulted in mass unemployment.

One more thing:
From now on please refrain from making divicive and anti-German statements that are simply not correct and untruthful like: "The east Germans are now the laughing stock of Germany".

I'm not calling you anything but the only ones openly proclaiming such things in Germany are the antifa.

Take care

Talking To A White Communist at the Store

Ironically, nobody would be talking about communism in 2006 if "American" bankers (Warburg, Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb, Lehman, Marshall) hadn’t financed Lenin and Trotsky’s "Workers’ Revolution".

You got Hitler all wrong.The existing exploitation was cemented by the jewish press of the left and the right.Thereby not allowing a real solution to the class problem.This is what Hitler meant.
And the solution he proposed was:

You simply haven't comprehended what you have read, so rather than bluffing your way through this discussion by telling me I'm wrong without providing textual support, might I suggest you reread Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, with particular emphasis on the section where he speaks of the factory worker and jewish tactics. There, Hitler clearly states that any social question which existed only came into being with the foreignization, indeed the jewification of Germany. For him it wasn't a natural German indigenous development. So to borrow a phrase, you got Hitler all wrong.

Social justice for the working masses will eventually lead to the elimination of the class bounderies.

Now YOU are putting your own communist wishful thinking into Hitler's mouth. Never ever anywhere did Hitler at any time state such a fiction. More baseless bluffing.

Originally Posted by Ronen
In fact, capitalism and communism were both rightly regarded by Hitler as tentacles of the same materialistic jewish hydra. The alleged opposition of the two to each other is superficial. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. International finance capitalism finds its counterpart in the internationalization of the proletariat, the break-down of national boundaries and the nation-state, the movement of capital, goods, and peoples across borders.

First you got Hitler wrong and now Marx.

"the break-down of national boundaries and the nation-state, the movement of capital, goods, and peoples across borders" are the products of "International finance capitalism" not their "counterpart".
A fact that becomes obvious when one realizes that these things happened/happen in capitalist and not communist societies.

Not sure what you mean with "internationalization of the proletariat" but i guess you got that one wrong too.Please clarify to me what you mean by that.

Typical of a communist to speak out of both sides of his mouth. First I'm wrong, yet you seek clarification. I simply meant that there is a melding to a degree from both ideologies. Marx's brotherhood of the single undivided proletariat class has morphed with the help from capitalism into a unit of labor and consumption, still alienated from its labor, yet accompanying the dissolution of nation-states just the same. This was just an observation.

Originally Posted by alex
And no i dont want to nationalize small-and middle-sized businness.Maybe this can be done in the far future (always depending on the technological level,the general world situation and the maturity of the working masses) but today it would simply fail.

...how it is you can claim you're not a communist after this is astonishing!

What part of it do you not understand? Maybe future aryan generations would want to socialize their entire economy for one reason or the other.I just said that such an utopia would be unrealistic today.

The part I don't understand is why someone who claims he's not communist but NS would think that in the future there would be the need for nationalization when even Hitler was plainly against it in the absence of there being jewish economic influence within society. You seem to hold nationalization as some sort of ideal, yet maintain your NS, that's the incomprehensible part.

Originally Posted by Ronen
The fact is you're not NS. The distinction is very clear. National Socialism sees race as the creative driving force in history. Bolshevism's dialectic materialism sees the driving force as class struggle. The two are in no way compatible no matter how much you would wish them to be so.

Again you are putting words in my mouth i never said.

Of course NS sees race as the creative driving force in history but at the same time doesnt ignore the social realities through time and seeks to end the exploitation on members of its own race.

Seeking to end exploitation doesn't mean pursuing the bolshevik ideal of eliminating classes, and that is in no way what Hitler had in mind. Fantasizing differently about facts don't make them so.

You're entitled to your worldview, but it pretty much renders you anti-NS, so you're probably better off in the opposition forum

This coming from someone i have to explain what NS and Marxism are all about... go figure.

Besides engaging in sophistry you haven't explained anything. You keep making the same baseless assertions over and over without support. That's what communists do because you got away with it so long in Eastern Europe. People would have placed their lives in jeopardy if they had every questioned phony communist assertions and outright lies.

Hitler wouldnt allow clowns around him who were constantely trying to torpedize his alliance with Stalin.

Again, Hitler's Stalin alliance was a tactical move of political expediency. Had nothing to do with ideological assent. Your logic is simply non-existent.

A red-brown alliance especially in eastern Europe is the way for NS to rise to actual power.With your reactionery poison you are harming the NS movement.

Are your feelings hurt? The above is nothing more than empty rhetoric. A red-brown alliance would be nothing more than allowing in a wolf in sheep's clothing. Hitler himself never entered into any political alliance at home with the communists. FORMER COMMUNISTS were won over, but communism was never compromised with.

I understand that this is a free speech forum and you are entitled to your reactionery worldview,but in my opinion it pretty much renders you anti-NS, so you're probably better off in the opposition forum.

This is the second funniest thing in your post. Tell me, since Hitler likewise held Marxism in utter comtempt, was he anti-NS as well? Communist orwellian language- black is white and white is black.

Originally Posted by Ronen
"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear." [Mein Kampf, Ch. 2]

Totaly irrelevant.

Now this was the most humorous part of the post for sure. Here you are spending line after line trying to convince someone that Hitler's national socialism is somehow politically and ideologically compatible with Marxism, and when I present a paragraph of what Hitler really thought, for you it's irrelevant. Another Orwellism.

Originally Posted by Ronen

Astounding! It isn't capitalism that has destroyed white lives in eastern europe (though predatory capitalism hasn't helped), but the communist regimes which sapped the strength, initiative, and creativity of its peoples and broke their spirit. They had a joke in those countries under communism: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." The east Germans are now the laughing stock of Germany and if you ask any eastern european who has been to eastern Germany lately, he will tell you that communism has managed to achieve the unthinkable- to create slackers out of Germans. The German, proverbial for his industry, energy, disciplined hard work, is now in the east for all intents and purposes a shell of himself. No doubt due to the wonderful system where he "had free full education, health care, dirt cheap rent, and public transport, among other things." Yes, and the Stasi breathing down his neck as well.

It is accepted as a fact by almost everyone in Germany that the introduction of capitalism did lead to the high unemployment in east Germany.The big and all powerfull multinationals simply destroyed the regional economy and overflowed the market with their crap while ousting the local and regional products.Not able to withstand the competition with the multinational corporations they had to close which resulted in mass unemployment.

The communist ideology you find so compatible with Aryan National Socialism crippled psychologically the white peoples under its dominion after a mere 50 or so years so as to render them almost unrecognizable from what they were, and you come back with this crap about the unemployment rate, huh? This is why you people belong nowhere near the reigns of power. Hitler definitely knew how to deal with jewish bolshevism.

One more thing:
From now on please refrain from making divicive and anti-German statements that are simply not correct and untruthful like: "The east Germans are now the laughing stock of Germany".

I'm not calling you anything but the only ones openly proclaiming such things in Germany are the antifa.

This last statement of yours definitely reveals you to be the cynical wolf in sheep's clothing that only an unrepentant communist can be. Everyone I've spoken with from eastern Europe, and I myself have relatives there, know that there's been huge psychological damage to the peoples there, and that the observations about the change in the east Germans I posted above are accurate. Of course you would not want anybody to notice this, for the same reasons you would not want you or yours to be held accountable for it. I have a cousin in the east just like you; unrepentant, cynical, and arrogant. If there is one small thing I hope I have accomplished during these exchanges, it's that people who might have been lurking here and read all this have seen for themselves what an insidious menace marxism still remains and what a deadly danger it is for any Aryan movement. A communist leopard never changes his spots.

Beyond that, you and your born-again commie pal PJ are a waste of my breath.

Ironically, nobody would be talking about communism in 2006 if "American" bankers (Warburg, Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb, Lehman, Marshall) hadn’t financed Lenin and Trotsky’s "Workers’ Revolution".

Right, and yet one of these communist sympathizers posting, if you noticed, has had some sort of mystical revelation that the role of jews in communism has been somehow overstated, yet the jews themselves in the Jewish Encyclopedia admit as much. All I've got to say is, whether or not the "movement" has any chance it hell, it would do well to steer clear of these types. I wish more people would have weighed in on this thread.

This is a cheap and dirty shot. Did you every consider that in today's media age the reason WNs haven't succeeded is hugely due to the slightly negative press coverage by the media jews that we've had to struggle to overcome?

No, it's due to the idiocy of the WN movement. How much negative press is voluntarily generated by groups like NSM or skinhead gang violence?

By contrast, how many movies or documentaries have been made about Lenin, Stalin, life under communism, the bolshevik revolution, etc., as compared to the ceaseless propaganda against NS?

Yeah, and how many of those are even remotely sympathetic?

Do you think there might be a larger reason why Che Guevara and hammer and sickle t-shirts are "cool" yet the swastika remains taboo?

Just because they are "cool" does not mean that the ideology is "cool". Che's popularity is based more on his "rebel" mystique. You don't see people wearing Stalin shirts these days.

Which part of that thesis do you have a problem with? Here is just one of many links which indicate communism is quite jewish indeed.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/commun.htm

Please present or cite any sources you might have as a rebuttal.

I don't need to, the records of the ethnicities of the Central Committee are genunine and do not show a large portion of Jews.

Yes, population growth demanded it. That must be why the Ukrainian intelligentsia had to be murdered as well, so that the population could be thinned out a little more and food produced more efficiently.

First of all, the population of Ukraine GREW by several million in between 1933-39. Second, the "intelligentsia" which purposely opposed the government and supported the swindling of peasants had to be punished, yes. Abraham Lincoln didn't take kindly to the Southern intelligentsia pushing for secession did he?

The following two articles were written about this alleged hoaxing of the Ukrainian famine.

http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html
http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam4.html

You'll note that both articles were posted on a "progressive" website, and that the articles were written having in mind that the "crimes" of nazi Germany were being minimized or at least relativized by those pointing out the crimes of the criminal soviet regime.

Yes, and such articles also appear on a myriad of other websites and in publications. What is your point?

"Nationalism Leads to Fascism"

That is the opinion of that particular group.

and

"In 1935, a certain "Thomas Walker" published a five-part story on the famine in the chain of newspapers owned by the fanatical anti-Communist and pro-fascist tycoon William Randolph Hearst. Accompanying the series were photographs, supposedly of starving Ukrainian peasants, which Walker claimed he had taken personally. In March 1935, Louis Fischer, then a pro-Soviet reporter for The Nation, expressed some doubts about "Walker's" photos: "Mr Walker's photographs could easily date back to the Volga famine in 1921."

First of all, if you read a detailed study of those photographs you would find out that they did indeed originate from the 1921-22 famine, Thomas Walker was a complete fraud. Several eyewitnesses refute the claim(Walker was never in Ukraine at all) Plus the demographics just don't add up.

Nice to know your cozying up to jewish communists who by contrast want to minimize their own crimes while constantly bemoaning those of the Germans. We all pick our sides. You've picked yours, and I really fail to see what it has to do with WN.

Failure is something you ought to be used to by now. The fact is that there is no evidence for the Ukrainian famine. Douglas Tottle is no a Jew, and it was his detailed studied that exposed the fraud.

Leaving aside the etymology of his real last name which some claim to mean literally, "son of a jew", there is plenty of evidence of the jewish preponderance in the highest ranks.

Holy shit, your credibility just took a nose dive!! Those who claim Stalin's original name means "Son of a Jew" are fucking idiots. "Djuga" does not mean "Jew" in Georgian. Yes it SOUNDS like "Jew" in English- however, the word for Jew in Georgian is VERY different "ebrei". Now do you still trust those websites?

http://wsi.matriots.com/ListofBolsheviks.html
http://www.angelfire.com/az3/goyim/communism

Can you find a non-WN site that affirms those lists- don't hold your breath.

"Interestinly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin himself: "National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30)."

Sure, show quotes of Stalin that defended Jews(anti-Semitism was a sign of reactionary elements in that time), and show nothing of his anti-Jew statements.

As far as the masses agreeing about Stalin, the masses also now agree that Hitler was a homosexual prostitute, a paper-hanger, a celibate, a jew, that he fucked his own niece, that he was a scatologist, etc., etc. And yes, in some cases the misguided masses have re-elected some of their executioners back into power in some of the former eastern bloc nations.

Right, you know FAR more about Eastern Europe than Eastern Europeans themselves. They should all just shut the fuck up and listen to you tell them their own history and what to do.

You CANNOT embrace this dialectic materialistic view and remain NS. It is a simple contradiction in terms.

Which is why I am no longer NS.

You're confusing simple labor laws with feminism. Feminism was the transference of the idea of class struggle into the realm of gender struggle. As such, feminism's proxy pedigree is communism, and its proponents were jewish female leftists.

Sorry, but feminism is a twisted by-product of some Communist concepts that were appropriated by social democrats and later the "new left".

Astounding! It isn't capitalism that has destroyed white lives in eastern europe (though predatory capitalism hasn't helped), but the communist regimes which sapped the strength, initiative, and creativity of its peoples and broke their spirit.

Wrong.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as non-predatory capitalism.

They had a joke in those countries under communism: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

Right, economic study is based on "jokes". Rest assured that few are making jokes like that now.

The east Germans are now the laughing stock of Germany and if you ask any eastern european who has been to eastern Germany lately, he will tell you that communism has managed to achieve the unthinkable- to create slackers out of Germans. The German, proverbial for his industry, energy, disciplined hard work, is now in the east for all intents and purposes a shell of himself. No doubt due to the wonderful system where he "had free full education, health care, dirt cheap rent, and public transport, among other things." Yes, and the Stasi breathing down his neck as well.

After the shit the Germans pulled in the Soviet Union in 41-44 they are lucky Germany still exists.

May I suggest you stop allowing yourself to be duped by jewish abstractions that have already been proven a failure in the grand laboratory that was eastern Europe.

May I suggest to you to stop referring to Communism as "Jewish abstraction" since it is neither. Furthermore I suggest you not lecture me on Eastern Europe since I A. Live there, and B. have studied these subjects for quite some time.

You must be aware that one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again when it has already been proven to be a failure. In the meanwhile, though I know you're a senior member on these forums, perhaps you should continue expounding on your recent epiphany on the virtues of bolshevism in the opposition forum along with Alex. Just a polite suggestion.

This is coming from a man that endorses National Socialism. How well did THAT work out?

Take care.

Just a quick word to those who badmouth the economy of Eastern Europe under socialism, mostly from ignorance or incredulity:

Do you honestly think that you can have some kind of WN or NS "revolution" and still retain even a semblence of the standard of living you have today, even in the west? If so you are a moron.

Ok J.P. , what does one have to do with the other? Yes a WN "revolution" will lead to a temporary downturn in living standards. But socialism will never bring it back up to current levels. Capitalism without the Jews is the only way to produce wealth and have a high standard of living. Socialism only appeals to the weak, those who are unable to excel in a free market economy.

You can talk about your "free health care" and "dirt cheap rent" all you want, but hell the nigger slaves in pre 1865 America had those. I will not be a slave to government. If you want to kneel and lick the hand of the one who holds your chains, go ahead. Better to do without and be free than be a slave to any man.

Ok J.P. , what does one have to do with the other? Yes a WN "revolution" will lead to a temporary downturn in living standards. But socialism will never bring it back up to current levels. Capitalism without the Jews is the only way to produce wealth and have a high standard of living. Socialism only appeals to the weak, those who are unable to excel in a free market economy.

Temporary downturn in living standards? Try back to the stone age. Racialism is inherently socialist whether you like it or not. Socialism turned nations which were as much as 100 years behind the western powers into major competitors. The Soviet Union was unaffected by the Great Depression(a natural consequence of capitalism)]
You can talk about your "free health care" and "dirt cheap rent" all you want, but hell the nigger slaves in pre 1865 America had those. I will not be a slave to government. If you want to kneel and lick the hand of the one who holds your chains, go ahead. Better to do without and be free than be a slave to any man.

What the fuck are you talking about? Slaves lived in shacks and they got medical care because they were PROPERTY. You take care of your car right? You'd take care of your slaves if you had some.

Perhaps the communist sympathizers haven’t noticed, but the vast majority of Westerners live pretty damn good. In general, the ones communists are crying big crocodile tears over, are those lacking motivation, intelligence, marketable skills and education. These types would not fare better in a communist society either, after all, who swept the floors at the MIG plant, who cleaned the rooms at the Inter Hotel, who cleaned the toilets at the airports, who farmed the pigs, etc. etc.? Some people you can not help, they are simply the way they are. It’s mainly human biology and psychology that determines whether some people will do well and others will not.

Which is why I am no longer NS.

Why aren&#8217]