Top BNP member's quit!

[Wowbanger TIP]

So you plan to fight capitalism and imperialism by kissing the **** of, praising and excusing the actions of the biggest protaganists of those ideolagies and instead your going to go around abusing 'anglo saxons'?

Viva La Revolution!

By the way, what are your heroes, inspiration and in your eyes genuine nationalists the EZLN's viewpoint on the Israel/Palestine situation....

Right so your arguing that Jews are all capitalist imperialists now are you? Does that mean you exonerate them of the traditional accusation of the right, of being behind socialism and communism?

The fact is that Anglos in the widest sense were the main driving force behind both socialism and capitalism. Without them neither would have been possible. That is unquestionably true no matter how many time you state that "it was all the Jew wot tricked us". In a way your opinion of Anglos is even lower than mine, I mean just how stupid do you think they are if they were duped into acting as they have by a handful of Jews?

I have no interest in designing arguments to appeal to anybody, least of all Anglos. My intention is merely to state the truth as I see it.

You can try and find some formula which will appeal to them in an attempt to prevent their destruction, but you won't find one. Even if you were a rational person and a political and sociological genius you would not be able to construct an alternative to the status quo which Anglos would back because they would rather be destroyed than abandon their hideous values and piratical instincts. Look at the mainstream attitude on this forum and you must know that is true. Moreover even if you could get them to overthrow their pimps the situation is now so dire that the power available to direct their society is insufficient to avoid what they have coming to them.

The only hope for the various Anglo Saxon and related nations is that the consequences of their behavior arrives sooner rather than later. Hopefully after an experience of societal collapse the survivors will have learned the importance of rational thinking. Or be wiped out, either way its a win for humanity.

The EZLN have recently offered their sympathy to the Palestinians, they always side with anyone opposed to yankee or yankee proxies, it's very difficult to criticize them for that. Moreover they accept that Chiapas should remain as part of Mexico, which is a far worse crime from a nationalist perspective. However, whilst they are not perfect, they are the best political movement I am aware of, their virtues more than make up for their shortcomings.

[Wowbanger TIP]

Right!Back to privare spats again with Mr Wowbanger.I'm pretty sure that you know quite a bit about Comrade Stalin. And you probably don't need me to tell you his admiration of the forceful methods of Ivan the Terrible, as well as Peter the Great. You see as much as you may admire the policies and methods of Uncle Joe, the fact is that he was as imperialist as Hitler was. He had dreams akin to those who built the British Empire. He understood that empires have to be extended, widened and that the nations that he conquered via the Red Army had to be subdued. Do you really think Stalin had any sort of feelings for upholding a true communistic revolution? I don't. In fact if anything, his regime was bureaucratic and state capitalist. There was nothing communistic in Stalinist Russia whatsoever. Possibly the only Marxist element was the abolition of religion (subsequently halted when WWII came along as he thought that religion would encourage patriotic fervour). Stalin was the great imperialist emperor; he trusted no one apart from himself.

One of his worst mistakes, apart from trusting Adolf, was eliminating his top brass prior to WWII. Tukachevsky, one of his most talented and loyal officers was executed along with thousands of other officers from the military. The Great Terror not only screwed the Soviet military up prior to WWII, but the lack of talented Officers with experience actually helped the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. This in turn allowed the Einzatzgruppen to murder hundreds of thousands of people in the first few months of the conflict as Soviet aircraft and tanks lay burning. See Service (2004); Conquest (1990) for even more details of how Stalins purge of top brass actually helped the Nazi invasion of the USSR.

I agree that the USSR wasn't conventionally Marxist or communist or whatever. The question is could it have been even had its leaders had wanted it to be? After the civil war it must have been pretty clear that revolutionary ideals were going to have to come second to the business of preserving the country from Imperialist aggressors, remember this is the 1920's we are talking about and the possibility that a country as large even as Russia could be hacked up by the Europeans and their friends had a far bit of precedent to back it up.

Combine that with the rhetoric of the West explicitly promising to destroy the revolution and the fact it has actually invaded Russia very recently and it's easy to see why Stalin was what he was.

Its not hard to see the parallels with the Revolution in France, also transformed into an Imperialist dictatorship by the same necessity caused by the exact same people.

The point is not that the USSR was great, but that it was morally better than the West even when forced to the extremes it was by the West. Which is part of my argument that the West is the worst thing there has ever been, even including the Aztecs. An argument of fundamental importance to my whole analysis of contemporary society. (*1)

As for National Present Day. Does this not symbolize all that is wrong with what is intrinsically a Christian (or Pagan) festival? Why should people feel the need to spend thousands of pounds at christmas? Where does this need come from? What is the point? Surely naming something National Present Day is wholly capitalistic as it is encouraging people to buy presents, and therefore spend money, just the same as Christmas, which we already have? Having something such as National Present Day is wholly materialistic as it suggests that everyone should go out to buy people presents, REGARDLESS as to whether you are religious or not. Even if you are Jewish or Muslim, a National Present Day (which would be just the same as Valentines Day) would suggest that everyone NEEDS to go and spend money on loved ones.

You assume that you have to buy a present, you could always make one or offer a sexual favour or something. More seriously even in the sort of stripped down lean economy I advocate people can not be self sufficient in everything, stuff would still have to be bought (although not necessarily from some Chinese sweat shop front like Argos).

If that is going to be the case we might as well make the most social good we can out of it by using such transactions within the context of a national festival.

I agree with the festivals and rituals. However I'm afraid that you'll have to put your revolution on ice. You see as much as the capitalist system may have suffered a prolonged recession, the people at the top have armies, tanks, fighter planes, lots of surveillance techniques and they sure as hell won't let the people at the bottom gain power. Shame but that's life.

I say revolution more for stylistic effect rather than in seriousness. When I look at the specimens rolling their trolleys around Wal Mart I know that their is no possibility of these dead eyed simpletons ever offering any resistance what so ever to their elite. Even if you look at this society's dissidents, on this forum say, you can only conclude that the elites are pretty secure. Not that I think their elite is all that, it may be theoretically well armed but its lost nearly every war its engaged in since the big one. It lacks the kind of vicious sadism that totalitarian dictatorships need if they are going to stay on top of an angry population of serious people.

However I do believe that the elite can't maintain the status quo much longer. It's facing multiple fatal threats; resource depletion, the consequences of its fantasy economics, environmental degradation, the food crisis, over population, social breakdown, etc etc I think whilst there is no chance of the elite being brought down by the people there is every chance, verging on certainty, that there are forces closing in on it that it can not withstand.

[Kodeine]

Absolutely, if anything they were far to lenient, German Imperialist instincts had to be stamped out and the only way too do that was to make the German people suffer. Maybe if they had stamped a little harder, or been allowed to stamp on the whole of Germany, we wouldn't be having this difficulty we currently are with the EU.

Well said. I have recently been saying much the same thing on a Nationalist forum in a thread about Churchill.

I shall quote from my posts on the other forum where I was replying to 'Nationalists' who were getting fairly abusive with anyone not agreeing with them that Churchill was a war criminal and that we should not have gone to war with Germany. One of the interesting things about the discussion was that some seemed to take offence at me calling the Germans 'Krauts' but find the words 'Niggers' and 'Wogs' to be acceptable. They also refused (on 3 occasions) to answer a question as to whether they would have fought alongside their fellow countrymen in WWII, joined Hitler's 'Britsh Corps' or been interned as pacifists or Mosleyites. Just a few things that seem to give away the fact that a lot of so-called Nationalists care more about Hitler's Germany than those who fought to defend this nation against invasion. I wonder how many 'Nationalists' on this thread who are so against what we did in the war are the same as the other lot?

Anyway, this is my take on it all...

What if Churchill made peace with Germany and then after a few years, after we had been lulled into a false sense of security an even stronger Germany suddenly attacked, blitzes left right and centre launched from German bases along the North Sea from Germany to Poland and we were invaded and were now living under German occupation and being made to suffer?

In my opinion Churchill never went far enough. He should have totally annihilated Germany and the Krauts. Wiped them off the face of the earth. Nothing good is ever achieved by making compromises in war because one day, the very existence of your enemy will come back to haunt you in one way or another.

That's not to say I enjoy people getting killed, only that in war total wipe-out is the only sure conclusion. It's nasty but it's effective. If we'd totally destroyed Germany in the first world war then we'd never have had what was the second world war. Can anyone deny that? Germany are almost dominating Europe again, albeit in the guise of the EU. If they'd been totally wiped out in the second world war then we wouldn't be in the position we are today with the EU.

...if Germany had been totally destroyed any sort of European Union would be a lot different to the one now. Any European Union should have been created by us and on our terms, not one where we had to wait to be allowed in by our traditional enemies and who then went on to make laws for us!

...while we were at war we should have gone all out for total annihilation. There should have been many many more Dresdens, and then after the war destroy everything (especially anything written in German and make it an offence to speak the language), give the land to the surrounding allied or neutral countries, sterilise or castrate those males who survived the war and give all the females to the surrounding nations. There you have it - Germany gone for good, but the females could still reproduce white kids but not German.

I wonder how long before Germany totally dominates the EU? If we stay in they will dominate us and if we get out then it won't be long before a German dominated Europe will try and impose it's will on us by force. And why? Because we allowed Germany to exist!

I'm not saying that Britain was a land of saints and Germany a land of demons or passing righteous judgment on either.

War began and people started killing each other. That is what you set out to do when there is war. If no civilians were ever meant to get killed then why don't armies meet in somewhere like the Antarctic, fight it out there and the victors come back and do what they set out to do to the enemy country? If there are going to be rules of engagement why not just settle things over a few games of chess?

We go to war allowing for the prospect of civilian deaths because that is the most effective way of destroying the enemy; so that a new front does not appear somewhere else from amongst the civilian population. Now if we accept that then you go all out to defeat the enemy. If both countries involve civilians then civilians are also an enemy to the opposition. Your aim is then to kill them. Surely that is logical!

Death is death, no matter if the killing is done according to certain rules or not.

The fact that two nations start fighting and are prepared to accept some rules means that they were simply not prepared to put in place other rules which restricted fighting solely to armies and well away from any civilians (ie.going to Antarctica to sort out their differences).

When you go to war accepting that your civilians will be involved, then it is logical to just kill all the enemy. Kill, kill, kill till you win. Something may be regarded as an attrocity but the aim is to kill. Civilians included.

Britain and Germany did not choose a neutral battlefield therefore they are agreeing to their civilians being a part of the war. If civilians are part of the war you try and kill them also. It is logical, then, to kill them in any way you can.

In case anyone may be thinking that we did not give Germany the chance to settle this on a neutral playing field with no civilians involved, remember that Germany had already chosen to involve civilians by invading other countries.

Now, if the most effective way of destroying your enemies is to commit attrocities then so be it. Death is death.

We may have been killing fellow white people but war had started. Once it starts, for whatever reason, then you have to do what has to be done to win - or else you risk losing!

If the name of the game is to kill then rules are for mugs, for an enemy can not be trusted. You go out to kill and destroy until you have won. Is that not common sense? You do things by half measures and you run the risk of the enemy getting the upper hand and destroying you.

Once two countries agree to wage war where civilians are going to be killed then neither Dresden, Coventry or any act resulting in enemy deaths should be regarded as a 'war crime'.

German civilians were a part of their own 'war effort' just as ours were over here. That made them the enemy and a legitimate target.

[The Wanderer]

Right so your arguing that Jews are all capitalist imperialists now are you?

No I wasn't I was refering specificaly to the Rotchschild family, who, as we can see, were the real driving force behind British Imperialism and the creation of the state of Israel. Not Mr & Mrs Smith as you previously tried to argue.

So you see, Zionism is incompatibale with any form of anti capitalist, anti imperialist movement.

[Wowbanger TIP]

No I wasn't I was refering specificaly to the Rotchschild family, who, as we can see, were the real driving force behind British Imperialism and the creation of the state of Israel. Not Mr & Mrs Smith as you previously tried to argue.

You might be able to see it but then you can see the works of The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion in your cornflakes, back here in reality Israel was conquered by the British cheered on, paid for and staffed by Mr and Mrs Smith.

So you see, Zionism is incompatibale with any form of anti capitalist, anti imperialist movement.

So your saying that all your pals are wrong and Jewster Bankers didn't start the Russian Revolution and it wasn't lead by Jews? And that no Jews are involved in the various anti-capitalist movements around the world?

And if zionism is incompatible with anti capitalism how do you explain the Kibbutz movement, the world's most successful communist experiment?

But all of that is merely incidental. The question I want you to answer is how much responsibility are you prepared to accept for the works of your people, or was it all the Jews?

[Wowbanger TIP]

Well said. I have recently been saying much the same thing on a Nationalist forum in a thread about Churchill.

I shall quote from my posts on the other forum where I was replying to 'Nationalists' who were getting fairly abusive with anyone not agreeing with them that Churchill was a war criminal and that we should not have gone to war with Germany. One of the interesting things about the discussion was that some seemed to take offence at me calling the Germans 'Krauts' but find the words 'Niggers' and 'Wogs' to be acceptable. They also refused (on 3 occasions) to answer a question as to whether they would have fought alongside their fellow countrymen in WWII, joined Hitler's 'Britsh Corps' or been interned as pacifists or Mosleyites. Just a few things that seem to give away the fact that a lot of so-called Nationalists care more about Hitler's Germany than those who fought to defend this nation against invasion. I wonder how many 'Nationalists' on this thread who are so against what we did in the war are the same as the other lot?

Anyway, this is my take on it all...


German civilians were a part of their own 'war effort' just as ours were over here. That made them the enemy and a legitimate target.

I agree with a lot of that, indeed I argued that there is no distinction between civilians and soldiers earlier in this thread. The idea that there is is just an aspect of the general "retreat from reason" in favour of comfortable delusion which is the general operating principle of this society. The challenging of which provokes fury from all quarters, as in the "Emperor's new clothes".

There appears to be something badly wrong with "Germanic" cultures (Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon and Germany proper) in general, all of them, except maybe the Dutch, appear to suffer from something very like cultural autism which makes them predisposed towards going collectively insane.

The "German Question" what are we going to do with a massive nation of psychotic loons right in the middle of Europe? Its a structural problem because Germany is always going to have a demographic advantage over the surrounding nations. This question is the root cause of a lot of problems in Europe, the French solution, "if you can't beat them join them" is the driving force behind the EU for example. Wiping them out is, unfortunately, morally unacceptable, although I total sympathize with people who advocate it. If there was one nation the world could afford to lose it would be Germany. If the Russians had got hold of the whole of Germany, and had not been forced to use the place as a buffer against the West ,then the problem might have been neatly solved for us. And the world would undoubtedly be a better place.

As for your friends "in another place". The problem is largely spiritual or moral, these people's main problem is that they lack moral integrity which leads them to look for excuses for their own nations behavior, which leads them to anti-semitism which leads them to get a hard on for Hitler. Increasingly we find this attitude sublimated and repressed, on the grounds of political expediency, resulting in the mess of the "moderate BNP". Examples are common on this forum if you would care to study the phenomenon.

This is another aspect of the overarching phenomenon I referred to at the start of this comment, that there is no compulsion to follow reason but that it is equally valid to make up anything so long as it is consistent with the master value system of our society, progressivism.

[david H]

Spence, what the "Nutzis" can not handle is why so mnyleaders of the Jewishcommunity are turning on their own people like ours have turned on us. Both peoples Whites and Jews face similar problms but it does not fit into the conspiracy theory so nutzis ignore it. The can not deal with the fact that the alliance is between Western elites and vastly rich Arab countries.
In this example Lord Phillips, President of The Supreme Court, whose both maternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews, imposes a law that attacks Jewishness.
The alliance between Western elites and Islam is so strong that as well as changing our culture by Islamification, the judiciary are now breaking down the Jewish community. They promote Sharia Law while making Judaism illegal under the totalitarian Race Relations Act of 1976.
The Jewish Free School school in Brent, is an Orthodox Jewish school and because it was oversubscribed gave priority to children deemed Jewish by birth. The boy was refused entry because his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith. The admission of a boy “M” was rejected because “M”'s mother became Jewish by conversion, after M was born. According to Orthodox rules, Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.
The Supreme Court decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. Supreme Court president Lord Phillips and Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke found that the school directly discriminated on racial grounds against child M and others like him. Judge Lord Rodger, said the decision "… produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools…"

[uclanlecturer]

I agree that the USSR wasn't conventionally Marxist or communist or whatever. The question is could it have been even had its leaders had wanted it to be? After the civil war it must have been pretty clear that revolutionary ideals were going to have to come second to the business of preserving the country from Imperialist aggressors, remember this is the 1920's we are talking about and the possibility that a country as large even as Russia could be hacked up by the Europeans and their friends had a far bit of precedent to back it up.

Combine that with the rhetoric of the West explicitly promising to destroy the revolution and the fact it has actually invaded Russia very recently and it's easy to see why Stalin was what he was.

No. Mainly because the fact is that the Bolshevicks were pretty much an elite class of people to start with. Lenin, Trotsky et al came from privileged backgrounds, in fact Lenin possessed a fleet of Rolls Royce cars at the time of his death. That is also the reason why they despised the Menshevik's so much. They wanted power, nothing more, nothing less. At the beginning there was hope for a bright communist future, however any Marxist hopefuls soon had their hopes dashed. In some cases permanently.

Even though they aimed to stop "Imperialist aggresors" such as the White armies, in turn the Bolshevik movement was looking towards imperialist expansion even in the 1920's under the guise of Bolshevik unity (for example Estonia, Georgia etc). Stalin was what he was for a variety of reasons. Strangely enough, in the time when you assess that Stalin acted in the way that he did because of "western aggression" Stalin was actively trading with a number of western countries. For example, he increased the supply of agricultural products, such as Wheat, whilst his own countrymen lay starving. The Ukrainian famine was compltely avoidable, had Stalin not taken the action that he did, which was to increase wheat exports and seize farms in the latter half of the 1920's.

Its not hard to see the parallels with the Revolution in France, also transformed into an Imperialist dictatorship by the same necessity caused by the exact same people..

Agreed. The revolution devours her children. As it would over here if it ever happened. Which it won't.

The point is not that the USSR was great, but that it was morally better than the West even when forced to the extremes it was by the West. Which is part of my argument that the West is the worst thing there has ever been, even including the Aztecs. An argument of fundamental importance to my whole analysis of contemporary society. (*1).

Interesting perspective. It depends on what you deem to be "morally better". How did the west force Stalin to transform viable farm units into bulky collectives farms, which regimented rural peasantry into work units, ruled by Communist Party cadres? Stalin wanted to industrialize the USSR in order to produce products that could be sold outside the country, hence generating currency reserves. His regime was authoritarian in nature, restricting peoples travel, rights to change jobs, and even their right to eat. He produced a veneer of respectability for the world, whilst oppressing his own citizens and attempting to seize other nations. I think you can probably draw parallels between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR in this respect.

Since the time when western nations had the ability to build ships and conquer and plunder distant lands, every system of government, whether it is so-called Communist or Capitalist has sought to gain land. The USSR, Nazi Germany and even post-1975 Vietnam is no exception.

You assume that you have to buy a present, you could always make one or offer a sexual favour or something. More seriously even in the sort of stripped down lean economy I advocate people can not be self sufficient in everything, stuff would still have to be bought (although not necessarily from some Chinese sweat shop front like Argos)..

So you're advocating self-sufficiency. Like the folks in the Good Life? I think I'll stick to National Sex Day.

If that is going to be the case we might as well make the most social good we can out of it by using such transactions within the context of a national festival.

I say revolution more for stylistic effect rather than in seriousness. When I look at the specimens rolling their trolleys around Wal Mart I know that their is no possibility of these dead eyed simpletons ever offering any resistance what so ever to their elite. Even if you look at this society's dissidents, on this forum say, you can only conclude that the elites are pretty secure.

Kind of rules out the Good Life scenario then? Unfortunately for us, we are used to a moderately high standard of living. And to that effect, most of the developing countries want exactly the same. Cue the upcoming resource wars. Most people are high on the work, live and pay bills conundarem. If there are any battles to be had, then in their eyes it's someone elses battle.

Not that I think their elite is all that, it may be theoretically well armed but its lost nearly every war its engaged in since the big one. It lacks the kind of vicious sadism that totalitarian dictatorships need if they are going to stay on top of an angry population of serious people.

It also lacks a unifying ideology too. However as long as the middle class are happy and the proles are in their place then it will keep on rolling on.

However I do believe that the elite can't maintain the status quo much longer.

They've got the money. The banks. The elite at the top of the tree. Big business. Land. And that's just for starters. How do you think the Latin American banana republics survive?

It's facing multiple fatal threats; resource depletion, the consequences of its fantasy economics, environmental degradation, the food crisis, over population, social breakdown, etc etc I think whilst there is no chance of the elite being brought down by the people there is every chance, verging on certainty, that there are forces closing in on it that it can not withstand.

The establishment has survived for hundreds of years. Through adversity, recessions, general strikes, civil disobedience, threats of communism/ fascism, wars. It's good at keeping people in their place. As long as the proles have their drink and drugs and illusions of winning the lottery or escaping their run down estates, middle class folks have their 4x4's and country retreats and upper class folks have their stocks and shares everyone is in their place.

[Wowbanger TIP]

Spence, what the "Nutzis" can not handle is why so mnyleaders of the Jewishcommunity are turning on their own people like ours have turned on us. Both peoples Whites and Jews face similar problms but it does not fit into the conspiracy theory so nutzis ignore it. The can not deal with the fact that the alliance is between Western elites and vastly rich Arab countries.
In this example Lord Phillips, President of The Supreme Court, whose both maternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews, imposes a law that attacks Jewishness.
The alliance between Western elites and Islam is so strong that as well as changing our culture by Islamification, the judiciary are now breaking down the Jewish community. They promote Sharia Law while making Judaism illegal under the totalitarian Race Relations Act of 1976.
The Jewish Free School school in Brent, is an Orthodox Jewish school and because it was oversubscribed gave priority to children deemed Jewish by birth. The boy was refused entry because his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith. The admission of a boy “M” was rejected because “M”'s mother became Jewish by conversion, after M was born. According to Orthodox rules, Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.
The Supreme Court decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. Supreme Court president Lord Phillips and Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke found that the school directly discriminated on racial grounds against child M and others like him. Judge Lord Rodger, said the decision "… produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools…"

Well sure, the death cult of progressivism is annihilating the Jewish people faster than any other. Which can only lead us to believe what common sense suggested in the first place, that these people mean what they say no matter how twisted and insane it might appear to a rational observer.

I don't think the elites are in an alliance with Islam, merely that their superiority complex and their profound racism combines with that strange ability they have to simple ignore what they don't find convenient to allow them to disregard the problem.

It's more or less impossible for them to accept Islam is a problem because to do so would invalidate more or less everything they believe in terms of cultural relativism and the invincible march of progress.

Trying to account for the actions and beliefs of the Western Establishment in a rational context doesn't work, you have to accept that they are behaving consciously irrationally to understand their mindset. They are believers, not thinkers.

[Wowbanger TIP]

No. Mainly because the fact is that the Bolshevicks were pretty much an elite class of people to start with. Lenin, Trotsky et al came from privileged backgrounds, in fact Lenin possessed a fleet of Rolls Royce cars at the time of his death. That is also the reason why they despised the Menshevik's so much. They wanted power, nothing more, nothing less. At the beginning there was hope for a bright communist future, however any Marxist hopefuls soon had their hopes dashed. In some cases permanently.

I've got quite a soft spot for Bolshevism because the plebs are so obviously unfit for any political purpose. Thought there is a danger of the revolutionary elite going native there is no practical alternative.

My guess is that the Revolutionary elite in Russia calculated that they couldn't do what they had wanted to do and survive, and in a fit of frustration did what they did.

Even though they aimed to stop "Imperialist aggresors" such as the White armies, in turn the Bolshevik movement was looking towards imperialist expansion even in the 1920's under the guise of Bolshevik unity (for example Estonia, Georgia etc). Stalin was what he was for a variety of reasons. Strangely enough, in the time when you assess that Stalin acted in the way that he did because of "western aggression" Stalin was actively trading with a number of western countries. For example, he increased the supply of agricultural products, such as Wheat, whilst his own countrymen lay starving. The Ukrainian famine was compltely avoidable, had Stalin not taken the action that he did, which was to increase wheat exports and seize farms in the latter half of the 1920's.

Well sure, one of the things I don't like about Marxism/Communism is that it is intrinsically and unnecessarily imperialistic and internationalist, you can't impose liberation on another nation any more than you can get the average Joe to unplug himself from the Matrix.

As for Stalin's trade with other nations, maybe he calculated that if potentially hostile nations were dependent on the agricultural output of Russia they would forgo jeopardizing that by invading? Plus there would be an argument that re-armament and industrialization were vital to the existence of the Revolution. If that is the case then the deaths of a few million peasants could be justified for the greater good or the lesser evil on the standard Benthamite model

Agreed. The revolution devours her children. As it would over here if it ever happened. Which it won't.



Interesting perspective. It depends on what you deem to be "morally better". How did the west force Stalin to transform viable farm units into bulky collectives farms, which regimented rural peasantry into work units, ruled by Communist Party cadres? Stalin wanted to industrialize the USSR in order to produce products that could be sold outside the country, hence generating currency reserves. His regime was authoritarian in nature, restricting peoples travel, rights to change jobs, and even their right to eat. He produced a veneer of respectability for the world, whilst oppressing his own citizens and attempting to seize other nations. I think you can probably draw parallels between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR in this respect.

See above, the difference is in intention, I'm really not all that bothered about how much Hitler oppressed the Trades Union movement, its the goal of fascism, the creation of a cult of the all powerful state which bothers me. Did Stalin intend the same? We'll never know, but Communism in general's goal is de-industrialised democratic agrarian communities, which meets with my approval.

Since the time when western nations had the ability to build ships and conquer and plunder distant lands, every system of government, whether it is so-called Communist or Capitalist has sought to gain land. The USSR, Nazi Germany and even post-1975 Vietnam is no exception.

Is that strictly true? I like the Chinese attitude myself, "we're not interested in ruling sub human ****". The theoretical Western version of Imperialism, which I agree goes back to the first instant they had blue water capabilities, is to assimilate the whole world into a version of themselves, although in practice this was to be combined with a few centuries of looting first.

It's this arrogance which makes Western Imperialism so abhorrent. Sure Genghis and Alexander were Imperialists but only in a sort of historically conscious "lets rack up the high score" sort of way. They had no ambition to destroy every culture they came in contact with. I think maybe this is some sort of Roman legacy we've got going on.

So you're advocating self-sufficiency. Like the folks in the Good Life? I think I'll stick to National Sex Day.

Not like the folks in the Good Life, they were bourgeois fascist reactionaries who should have had their pigs sequestrated and then been shot after being made to dig their own graves. Communal self sufficiency on the pre-industrial model minus the feudalism is my ideal.

Kind of rules out the Good Life scenario then? Unfortunately for us, we are used to a moderately high standard of living. And to that effect, most of the developing countries want exactly the same. Cue the upcoming resource wars. Most people are high on the work, live and pay bills conundarem. If there are any battles to be had, then in their eyes it's someone elses battle.

It also lacks a unifying ideology too. However as long as the middle class are happy and the proles are in their place then it will keep on rolling on.

They've got the money. The banks. The elite at the top of the tree. Big business. Land. And that's just for starters. How do you think the Latin American banana republics survive?


The establishment has survived for hundreds of years. Through adversity, recessions, general strikes, civil disobedience, threats of communism/ fascism, wars. It's good at keeping people in their place. As long as the proles have their drink and drugs and illusions of winning the lottery or escaping their run down estates, middle class folks have their 4x4's and country retreats and upper class folks have their stocks and shares everyone is in their place.

I agree with the first two paragraphs, I just don't think the Establishment can sustain society as it has been for the last sixty odd years no matter how much they want to. The states of the West are functionally bankrupt along with the vast majority of the population, the ponzi scheme economy is irreparably broken and they have nothing of any real value to trade for the imports of labour and goods they need to keep the whole bread and circuses thing going.

Once you have satisfied the basic conditions required for a revolution, or social breakdown, much the same thing, then the paraphernalia such as an ideology can be conjured pretty quickly.

The assets of shares in bankrupt companies and huge hoards of wealth denominated in devalued worthless currencies aren't much use in such a situation. Especially when the plebs are doomed and looking for someone to blame. The contemptible populations of the West may never have had the guts or brains to fight for what was theirs but I bet they will go a bit when they haven't got anything to lose, even the prospect of a dismal future as a wage slave.