Francis Parker Yockey came to believe that in the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the lesser evil because a) It did not have the potential for world domination that American consumerism and plutocracy had, b ) it was anti-Zionist, and since the 1950's Jewish power was more entrenched in America than in the USSR.

I agree with Yockey's basic thesis. As I stated on another thread, the quote "Communism robs men of their freedom, American capitalism robs them of their souls" comes to mind. Mass consumer culture, an economy driven by the transnational corporation and international finance, and the ultra-individualism created by free market competition has done more to subvert nationalist sentiment than Communism could ever hope to accomplish. -AY



WHAT IS BEHIND THE HANGING OF THE ELEVEN JEWS IN PRAGUE ?

by Francis P. Yockey

Published in December 1952

On Friday, November 27, there burst upon the world an event which though small in itself, will have gigantic repercussions in the happenings to come. It will have these repercussions because it will force a political reorientation in the minds of the European elite.

That event was the conclusion of the treason trial of the Jews in Prague, and their condemnation to death. During the years 1945 and 1946 the coalition Jewry-Washington-Moscow functioned quite perfectly and frictionlessly. When the Israel "State" was established as the result of armed Jewish aggression, the entire world, dominated by Moscow and Washington, sang hymns of praise and congratulation. Washington recognized the new "State" de facto within a few hours of its proclaimed existence. Moscow outbid Washington in pro-Jewishness by giving de jure recognition. Both Washington and Moscow vied with one another in seeking to please the Israel operetta-state and aided it by all means moral and material. Russian diplomats boasted that at last, in Haifa, they had a warm-water port.

And now, after a few short years, Israel is recalling its "ambassadors" from Russian vassal-states, and intensifying its anti-Russian policy from its American citadel. Volatile Jews in Israel and America cry out that Stalin is following in the footsteps of Hitler. The entire American press boils with fury at anti-semitism in Russia. Anti-semitism, warns the New York Times, is the one thing America will not tolerate in the world.

Why this bouleversement?

It began early in 1947 with the Russian refusal to surrender a part of its sovereignty to the so-called "united nations" for purposes of "control" of the atomic weapon industry. Jewish statesmen, being materialistic in their metaphysics, believe strongly in the "absolute" military power of atomic weapons, and considered it thus indispensable for the success of their policy that they control these weapons unconditionally. This control they already possessed in America through the Atomic Energy Commission, specially created and constituted so that it is beyond the reach of Congress, and responsible only to the President, who is, by the practical rules of American inner-politics, an appointee of the Culture-State-Nation-People-Race of the Jew. They sought the same degree of control of atomic weapons in Russia, and used the device of the "united nations" to submit an ultimatum to the Russian leadership on this question.

This was in the latter part of 1946, when the tide of atom-worship was at its height, and the minds of nearly all of the poor crop of statesmen who today conduct the political affairs of the world were fantastically dominated by a mere explosive bomb. A similar mania reigned for a short time after the invention of dynamite, after the invention of the machine-gun. The Russian regime also believed in atoms with the same religious faith, and thus regarded the abdication of its "atomic" sovereignty as equivalent to the abdication of its entire sovereignty, Thus the Jewish-American ultimatum in late 1946 was rejected, and in early 1947 the preparation for the Third World War began.

This Russian refusal stymied the plans of the Jewish leadership, which aimed at a surrender of both Russian and American sovereignty to the "united nations", an instrumentality dominated by the Jewish Culture-State-Nation-People-Race. Even supine, politically-unconscious America could hardly be expected to give up its sovereignty when the only other world-power unconditionally refused, and the entire policy had to be scrapped.

The next policy of the Jewish leadership was to persuade the Stalin regime by the encirclement and pressure of the "cold war" that it was hopeless to resist. The same tactic was used against the regime of Adolf Hitler from 1933 until 1936, when war was decided upon at the earliest feasible moment.

Because of the Russian rejection of the atomic weapon ultimatum, Russia now found its policy opposed everywhere, in Austria, in Germany, in Korea, in Finland. Those same American publicists who had become so deft at explaining Russia's need for "security" as Russia seized one landscape after another, suddenly turned against Russia the accusation of "aggressor". The faithful Russian servants in the West, like Truman, Acheson, Churchill, Attlee, Gaulle and the rest became suddenly -- almost -- anti-Russian. Naturally they did not use the same sort of language against Russia, the peace-loving democratic people of yesterday, that they had used against Germany, and -- naturally again --- they did not yet use the language of "Unconditional Surrender" when it came to a military test, in Korea. Although they had eagerly sought Russian aid against Germany, they did not now seek German aid against Russia. That would be going too far, and it is one of the political weaknesses of the Jew that he is the victim of idées fixes. The leading obsession of the Jew is his unreasoning hatred of Germany, which, at this present stage of Europe's cultural evolution means: unreasoning hatred of Europe.

For several years there have been grumblings and undertones in the American press against "anti-semitism" in Russia. These dark mutterings began after the Russian rejection in late 1946 of the Jewish-American ultimatum on the atomic weapon question. It was then that the Stalin regime began its inner-policy of dropping its numerous Jews from the highest positions, then working on down to the lower positions. Elastically, the Stalin regime tried all approaches to the Jewish leadership: it offered aid to Israel; it withdrew the offer and shut off emigration to Israel; it tried every policy, but still the Jewish-American encirclement policy continued. Wooing the Arabs did not change the mood of the Jewish-American leadership, nor did spurning the Arabs. The press campaign against Russia continued in America and all its European vassal-states. "Russia is anti-semitic" -- thus thundered the American press, and, as political initiates know, this is the worst epithet in the American arsenal of political invective. As Eisenhower said, when accused by Truman of being an anti-semite: "How low can you get?"

* * * * * * * * * *

The treason trials in Bohemia are neither the beginning nor the end of a historical process, they are merely an unmistakable turning point. Henceforth, all must perforce reorient their policy in view of the undeniable reshaping of the world-situation. The ostrich-policy is suicide. The talk of "defense against Bolshevism" belongs now to yesterday, as does the nonsense of talking of "the defense of Europe" at a period when every inch of European soil is dominated by the deadly enemies of Europe, those who seek its political-cultural-historical extinction at all costs.

That same barbaric despotism called the Russian empire and presided over by the fat peasant Stalin -- Djugashvili, who rules by his cunning a Khanate greater than all those gathered together by the mighty Genghis is today the only obstacle to the domination of the entire earth by the instrumentality called "united nations". This vast Russian empire was created by the Jewish-American hatred of Europe-Germany. During the Second World War, in order to prevent Stalin and his pan-Slav nationalist-religious entourage from concluding peace with Europe-Germany, the Jewish-American leadership gave Russian military equipment in unheard-of masses, and political promises, gifts and advantages with unheard-of largesse. With the 14,795 airplanes; 375,883 trucks; and 7,056 tanks given it by America, Russia occupied all Eastern Europe for itself, and advanced into Magdeburg, Weimar and Vienna. The American Secretary of State Marshall acted consciously and openly as a Russian agent in undermining the Chiang regime in China and delivering quietly to Russian vassaldom a quarter of the world's population. It was only later that this conduct of Marshall's seemed reprehensible; at the time, he was regarded as a distinguished diplomat, like Churchill and Roosevelt at Teheran, and was decorated for his service to Russia.

Gradually the picture changed, there was more talk of "anti-semitism" in Russia, and American public opinion, in prompt and unconditional obedience to the American press, switched over from being anti-German and pro-Russian to being anti-German and anti-Russian.

The epoch marked by the trials in Prague is not absolute; Russian papers still explain that the Jews condemned to death for sacrificing the interests of Bohemia to the interests of Jewry were "enemies of the Jewish people". The American Jewish Committee takes the same line, so that people elsewhere in the world, in places like America and its English appanage, will not develop the idea that it would even be possible for a Jew holding public office in a host-country to behave like a Jew, and not like a loyal member of the host-country. The American Jewish Committee, however, gives no explanation whatever, not even in mere words, of what possible reason Russia would have for charging loyal Russian subjects with sacrificing Russian interests to Israel interests. They give us no clue. Apparently they would have the world believe that the canny peasant regime of Stalin is embarking on entirely unmotivated adventures in the same realm of world-politics which destroyed the political power of National Socialist Europe; the power of the Jewish Culture-State-Nation-People-Race.

The question of "guilt" or "innocence" in these, or any other political trials, like the stinking horror of Nürnberg, is historically meaningless. The Jewish victims in Prague, like the Rosenbergs in America, merely did not understand how late it was in the development of the "cold war". The fashion of yesterday, of being pro-Russian in word and act, has changed. The Rosenbergs were not au courant. The Jewish officials in Prague also were living in yesterday and felt far more secure than they were. In 1952 they behaved as though they were in 1945.

Anyone who knows the simple meaning of the world "politics" knows that these trials were not spontaneous outbreaks of "race prejudice" on the part of politically wide-awake Stalin and his power-hungry entourage. These men want power and they will not attack on a front where, in the event of victory, no power could possibly be gained. For 35 years, Stalin has been pro-Jewish in his inner- and outer-policy, and if he now changes, it is for well-considered reasons of state-necessity.

The same Jewish press which says Stalin is "anti-semitic" says that his Jewish victims are "enemies of the Jews". If they really believed this of his victims, the trials show that Stalin is pro-Jewish, not that he is anti-Jewish. However, nothing is easier than to catch the Jewish leaders in contradictions during these times when they are frantically realizing that perhaps their atomic ultimatum, their "united nations" front against Russia, their "cold war" encirclement of Russia and their Korean war were gigantic blunders.

Up to now their objective within Russia has been to replace the Stalin regime, which the Jews consider as a traitor to the fundamental principle of Bolshevism, by a new Trotsky. Just as they constantly hoped for an internal revolution in Germany, so they have hoped for a revolution against Stalin, a revolution to return to Trotskyism and the fundamental principle of international Bolshevism, a revolution to wipe out religious, pan-Slav Russian nationalist-imperialism, a revolution which would embrace the "united nations" and bring about a Jewish millennium, the reunion of Baruch and Kaganovich, of Lippman and Ehrenburg, of Buttenwieser and Eisner, of Ana Pauker and Ana Rosenberg. But now, this hope has vanished. There is no way of bringing about the millennium by peaceful means, through coercion of Russia by "cold war" and "united nations".

It is possible now to record the developments which have been rendered inevitable by the clear break signified by the Prague trials.

* * * * * * * * * *

First, and most important of all to those of us who believe in the Liberation of Europe and the Imperium of Europe: this is the beginning of the end of the American hegemony of Europe. The shoddy structure of Morgenthau Plan and Marshall Plan, of Schumann Plan and Strassburg Plan, of the American flag flying over European capitals, of NATO, of the systematic subjugation and spoliation of Germany, of the satanic project of constructing a German Army to fight Russia on behalf of the occupying Jewish-American enemy, an Army without a General Staff, officered by democrats and armed with the weapons of 1870, the whole prolonged democratic holiday of churchills, gaulles, spaaks, gasperis, adenauers and schumanns. For Europe, the Prague trials will act as a historical cathartic to flush out the historical waste-matter of churchills and their liberal-democratic-communist dirt.

The American hegemony is doomed because all Europe realizes with a start -- what Imperium, The Proclamation of London and the Frontfighter have preached for years -- that the power on whose behalf Europe is asked to fight, "Bolshevism" is none other than the Jewish State-Nation-People-
Race, that entity which itself is the historical creator and leader of political Bolshevism.

It is obvious that events which were strong enough to force Stalin to reorient his entire world-policy and to become openly anti-Jewish will have the same effect on the elite of Europe. For the American hegemony to endure, it is necessary that the European elite be quite passive -- it is of course quite impossible that the European elite would ever actively cooperate with primitive human material like McCloy, Truman, Acheson or Eisenhower -- and the Prague trials have gone off with an explosive roar to waken this elite to active resistance against the death plans being hatched for the European organism in Washington by the Jewish-American leadership.

America cannot undo the Prague trials any more than Russia can. From these trials there is now no going back. They are a war-declaration by Russia on the Jewish-American leadership no matter whether or not the Russian press still wraps its explanations in wooly words disclaiming "anti-semitism". What matters in politics above all, is not what one says, but what one does. The fact is: the Russian leadership is killing Jews for treason to Russia, for service to the Jewish entity. Nothing can gainsay, or reverse this fact. The European elite will perforce note this fact and be governed accordingly. Russia has publicly before the world named its power-enemy, and has thus removed all controversy on the question of who is the real power-beneficiary of the American hegemony of Europe.

In the dark days of 1945, many Europeans embraced the American occupation as the lesser of two evils. During the past 7 years the comparative destructiveness of Russian barbarism and American-Jewish Bolshevism has appeared in its true proportions, the proportions set forth in Imperium, Volume II: a Russian occupation would be far less dangerous to Europe because of the abysmal cultural gulf between Russian and the West. This gulf would render impossible the erection of a vassal-state system, because there are no religious pan-Slavs in Europe, and the Russian barbarian leadership trusts no one else. The notion -- fostered by wild American propaganda -- that Russia could kill off the 250,000,000 people of Europe need not be taken seriously. It is a vile insult to European spiritual resources and masculinity, as well as being a historical nightmare and originated no doubt in the brain of some American writer of science-fantasy stories.

For political purposes, and increasingly for total cultural purposes, America is dominated absolutely by the Culture-State-Nation-People-Race of the Jew. America in Europe appeals to all the forces of Culture-Retardation and reaction, the forces of laziness and degeneracy, of inferiority and bad instincts. From the spiritual sewers of Europe, America can siphon up an endless number of churchills to do its dirty work of dividing, despoiling and destroying Europe in a suicidal war.

Henceforth, the European elite can emerge more and more into affairs, and will force the Jewish-American leadership to render back, step by step, the custody of European Destiny to Europe, its best forces, its natural, organic leadership. If the Jewish-American leaders refuse, the new leaders of Europe will threaten them with the Russian bogey. By thus playing off Russia against the Jewish-American leadership, Europe can bring about its Liberation, possibly even before the Third World War.

* * * * * * * * * *

A second inevitable development from the turning-point of the Prague trials is the intensification of the American diplomatic offensive against Russia, the "cold war". The press campaign will intensify in America and in Europe; Russia will become morally blacker and blacker; the American armament will be accelerated; all potential soviet agents will be liquidated by the "united nations". Russia will naturally retaliate: today Pravda says "Zionism is a tool of American imperialism". Tomorrow it will say: "American imperialism is the tool of Zionism".

A third inevitable development: the collapse of the American-Jewish position in the Near East and throughout Islam. Since Russia will be unable to retreat from its anti-Jewish policy and the Jewish State-Nation-People-Race from its anti-Russian policy, since for each one there is no other power-opponent in the world, Russia will perforce ally itself with Islam, and Islam will perforce ally itself with Russia. Dark clouds of tragedy are gathering over the operetta-State of Israel, with its 1,000,000 population surrounded by a sea of 300,000,000 Mohametans in whose face it has just spat, emboldened by the brawn of its big American lackey. The lackey is still big, still stupid, still willing -- but he is 5,000 miles away, and the concern will grow graver in Israel, and in secret places there, evacuation plans are being re-examined...

A fourth inevitable development is the weakening of the American position in Japan, and within a few years it is quite possible we will see the final expulsion of the American occupation troops from Japan. Even today these troops are ordered to wear mufti on the Japanese streets, and it is unavoidable that the coming intensification of Russian policy against the Jewish American regime of Washington will automatically heighten the nationalist activity of the politically-conscious Japanese elite.

Many other developments must follow, developments which no head in the Kremlin is now contemplating. Some are regular, and foreseeable, others are Imponderables and cannot even be imagined: one thing is sure -- whoever declares war on the Jew will soon be engaged in a fight of world-wide dimensions and increasing viciousness, for the power of the Jewish State-Nation-
People-Race is widespread, and the leadership of this State-Nation-People-Race conducts its policy with its emotions rather than intellectually, subject as it is to obsessions and idées fixes.

To us in Europe, the trials are welcome; they clear the air. The opponents have now defined themselves. America recedes now to its proper position, that of the armorer and the technician, the world's assembly line, the supplier of biological units called G.I.'s to whoever is situated to pull the appropriate strings -- in the First World War, it was England, in the Second it was Jewry. As far as Europe is concerned, the Jewish leaders may as well pull down the Stars and Stripes and run up the Star of David.

It was fatuous enough to ask Europe to fight for America, it was silly enough to ask it to "defend itself against Bolshevism" -- under the leadership of Frankfurter, Lehmann, and Morgenthau -- but now it is too absurd to ask Europe to fight to wipe out "anti-semitism" in Russia. Is there one European -- just one -- who would respond to this war-aim? But today, openly, without any possible disguise, this is the raison d'etre of the coalition against Russia, for Russia has named its chief enemy, its sole enemy, and the sly peasant leadership of pan-Slavs in the Kremlin is not given to frivolity in its foreign policy.

The trials have made easier the task of the European Liberation Front. This Front was the first organ to warn Europe of the extinction in slavery promised for it by an alliance, supposedly with America, but actually with the Culture-State-Nation-People-Race of the Jew.

We repeat our message to Europe: no European must ever fight except for sovereign Europe; no European must ever fight one enemy of Europe on behalf of another enemy.

Europe has one aim: to actualize its Destiny. This means, to reconquer its sovereignty, to reassert its mission, to establish its Imperium, to give to the world an era of order and European peace. In the actualization of this mighty, irresistible Destiny, all extraneous events are mere material to be utilized. Inwardly, therefore, the words of the London Proclamation are as true today as they were in 1948, as they will be in 1960; "No, Europe is no more interested in this projected war than in a struggle between two negro tribes in the Sudan."

Communism robs men of their freedom, American capitalism robs them of their souls

You could always go to North Korea if you feel that way.

One needs only to view the political situation of today to see that Yockey was right.

In the former USSR there remains a fierce anti-semitism (particularly in the Baltic states which were part of the USSR, there are numerous threads on ThePhora to document this) while in the US the ZOG is massively powerful through the neo-cohens and have even managed to pass a bill to monitor anti-ZOG activity globally. I speak of the Global Anti-Semitism Monitoring which is ironically, when one views the holohoax myths, abreviated GAS. (yuck, yuck...)

Yockey was right. For proof watch the one-eyed Jew, television, with its never-ending parade of commericals about fetid breath, moist underarms and troubled intestines, not to mention the stories of Muslim atrocities to feed Christian hatred against Israel's enemies.

Communism robs men of their freedom, American capitalism robs them of their souls

You could always go to North Korea if you feel that way.

Had it not been destroyed materially and economically by a bombing run and a decade's embargo, I might have contemplated a move to Iraq. Perhaps I could have served as Hussein's Ezra Pound or William Joyce.
:D

Had it not been destroyed materially and economically by a bombing run and a decade's embargo, I might have contemplated a move to Iraq. Perhaps I could have served as Hussein's Ezra Pound or William Joyce.

Like Stalin( except for a couple of people) Hussein tended to conduct a regular housecleaning of his inner circle. I tend to doubt an outlander and an infidel would last too long even if you gained initial favor.

Had it not been destroyed materially and economically by a bombing run and a decade's embargo, I might have contemplated a move to Iraq. Perhaps I could have served as Hussein's Ezra Pound or William Joyce.

Like Stalin( except for a couple of people) Hussein tended to conduct a regular housecleaning of his inner circle. I tend to doubt an outlander and an infidel would last too long even if you gained initial favor.

Actually, an outsider and "infidel" has a better chance of not being purged. Why do you supposed Tariq Aziz lasted so long? He was a Catholic, and as such had absolutely no chance of coming to power in a largely Muslim nation. So unlike the others in Hussein's inner circle, Aziz was not a threat, he would never rise any higher than Deputy PM or minister of foreign affairs.

Similarly, an expatriat American running anti-Zionist radio broadcasts from Iraq would not be very likely to usurp power and would most likely be left alone.

True to a certain degree... except on certain occasions if the populace was discontent over sanctions you'd make a tempting morsel to throw from the palace balcony to the mob.

Also I don't think you'd be nearly as cool as Baghdad Bob was. He should get a late night talk show hes way better then that no talent has been Letterman.

AntiYuppie,

I never have liked this notion, that the Soviet Union was the lesser evil. The effect often was that "Communism robs men of their freedom, American capitalism robs them of their souls." It was not true all of time. In the early days of the soviet union the government did push fornication and abotion. In was under Stalin that government used fake nationalism to control people. It was the long term of goal of the soviet to crush mens souls, they were just waiting till they had finnished off America.

Sadly American capitalism did as much if not more damage to Western Europe as Soviet Marxism.

Still I can not the Soviet Union a lesser evil. Sadly I might go for just as evil. Sadly no one was fighting for the old order of pre-WWWI Europe.

AntiYuppie,

I never have liked this notion, that the Soviet Union was the lesser evil. The effect often was that "Communism robs men of their freedom, American capitalism robs them of their souls." It was not true all of time. In the early days of the soviet union the government did push fornication and abotion. In was under Stalin that government used fake nationalism to control people. It was the long term of goal of the soviet to crush mens souls, they were just waiting till they had finnished off America.

Sadly American capitalism did as much if not more damage to Western Europe as Soviet Marxism.

Still I can not the Soviet Union a lesser evil. Sadly I might go for just as evil. Sadly no one was fighting for the old order of pre-WWWI Europe.

The victory of the US over the USSR in the Cold War marks not the victory of "conservatism" over "leftism," but rather the victory of a distilled form of Trotskyism over Stalinism. This may not have been apparent in the 1980's when the neoconservative heirs to Trotsky operated behind the scenes (while figureheads like Reagan mouthed conservative rhetoric for the peanut gallery, much as Bush does, albeit more ineffectually, today), today they are fully entrenched in the power structure and openly calling the shots.

I'm interested in hearing why thirty million people murdered is a 'lesser evil' than 'newfangled' rock and roll music and negro jazz.

AntiYuppie

Sadly you are most Right!
The victory of the US over the USSR in the Cold War marks not the victory of "conservatism" over "leftism," but rather the victory of a distilled form of Trotskyism over Stalinism.

Henry Morgenthau,

A good point, I agree. In west Cultural Marxism kills the souls of men slowly. Sadly millions have willing let their souls die. Unlike the millions Stalin killed, for the time being; they can only kill our souls if we let them. But it will not be too many years till new "NKVDs" start to shoot people like us and dump our bodies in pits.

I'm interested in hearing why thirty million people murdered is a 'lesser evil' than 'newfangled' rock and roll music and negro jazz.

Cultural MarxismI'd think that this "Cultural Marxism" would be endemic to those societies in which Marxist leaders practised social engineering. Examples would be Albania, China, Romania, the Soviet Union, and the DPRK. Now, I compare the cultures of those states in which Marxist social and cultural engineering was most extensively practised, in which Marxist values and morality were the most inculcated in the masses, with you call "Cultural Marxism", and what I soon find is that those societies which you describe as "Cultural Marxist" have no similarity to them. "Cultural Marxism", as you use the term, has never existed in Marxist states. American trash-based culture has nothing in common with any Marxist state I know of, and capitalist cultural degeneracy is inimical to socialist and communist construction.

Communism robs men of their freedom, American capitalism robs them of their souls

You could always go to North Korea if you feel that way.

It was only a single sentence comprised of 13 ordinary words, thus you really should have been able to follow its meaning, i.e. that decent people ought to oppose BOTH communism AND capitalism. Being critical of capitalism hardly makes one a follower of Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro, anymore than being a critic of communism makes one a Czarist or a Catholic.

And let me just add that Yockey was quite correct. While the USA may not be murdering American Whites by the millions at present, on its current trajectory, its only a matter of decades, if not years. In the long run, the USA will be responsible for the deaths of many more good Whites than the Soviet Union ever was. This Jew-ridden, corrupt, vile, degenerate excuse for a nation-state, which was once so sincerely and appropriately loved by all who called it home, simply must be destroyed, as thoroughly and as quickly as humanly possible. Hopefully, the country of America will survive the inevitable demise of the American nation, and we can subsequently rebuild.

Excellent post, Kevin:

One might ask, to bring the picture into a more precise focus, will America survive the Bush family. A while back Bush the Elder appeared on the one-eyed Jew gushing about his son. I'm so proud, so proud! Proud of a mass-murderer? Only in America.

I would see the USSR in a much better light if they did not aid those fighting against Apartheid.

AntiYuppie

Henry Morgenthau,

A good point, I agree. In west Cultural Marxism kills the souls of men slowly. Sadly millions have willing let their souls die. Unlike the millions Stalin killed, for the time being; they can only kill our souls if we let them. But it will not be too many years till new "NKVDs" start to shoot people like us and dump our bodies in pits.


I don't care about 'collective souls'. The music you listen to, the television you watch, and the books you read are choices. Its ridiculous to be afraid of IDEAS or SOUNDS, and to compare them to outright slaughter.

The notion of Charlie Parker being on some sort of equal moral plane with Beria is laughable.

I would see the USSR in a much better light if they did not aid those fighting against Apartheid.

Really? Why would you see them in a better light? Lets say they had nothing to do with the ANC. Why would you possibly see the Soviet Union in a better light?

I don't care about 'collective souls'. The music you listen to, the television you watch, and the books you read are choices. Its ridiculous to be afraid of IDEAS or SOUNDS, and to compare them to outright slaughter.

Bump.

- "Its ridiculous to be afraid of IDEAS or SOUNDS, and to compare them to outright slaughter."


A shallow, materialistic approach. As a Christian, I can at least appreciate the idea that those who can poison our souls and turn us into living dead are more dangerous than those who can only kill our bodies.

(Since you two are Jew-lovers, I might mention that some Orthodox Jews in Eastern Poland thought likewise, and preferred to fell into hands of Hitler instead of Stalin...)


Petr

- "Its ridiculous to be afraid of IDEAS or SOUNDS, and to compare them to outright slaughter."


A shallow, materialistic approach. As a Christian, I can at least appreciate the idea that those who can poison our souls and turn us into living dead are more dangerous than those who can only kill our bodies.


From a religious approach, life is a test. Free will is the method by which faith is tested. Outlawing choice of such trivial things as books and music is antithetical to the purpose of free will.

If your soul is so weak as to be corrupted by some soft jazz or Elvis, you're hardly Heaven's Host material.


(Since you two are Jew-lovers, I might mention that some Orthodox Jews in Eastern Poland thought likewise, and preferred to fell into hands of Hitler instead of Stalin...)


LOL Care to show me the poll result you base that statement on?

- "If your soul is so weak as to be corrupted by some soft jazz or Elvis, you're hardly Heaven's Host material."

Crude straw-manning (plus putting words to my mouth). There are much worse things to be found in the abomination that we nowadays call "the Western Civilization."

Even neocon "WorldNetDaily" has recently published a good article on the horrendous legacy of the Kinsey Report, to mention just one example:

"Selling sex in the U.S.A."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41407


- "LOL Care to show me the poll result you base that statement on?"

Why do you demand a "poll"? I said "some". I can't right now remember exactly where I read it, but some rabbi reasoned that "Hitler will kill our bodies, but Stalin will murder our souls".


Petr

Western capitalism is slavery disguised as freedom, which is even more dangerous than slavery that goes by the name.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

- (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)


"For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

"While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage."

- 2 Peter 2:18-19


Petr

2 Peter 2:18-19 must be the best description I've read of the American Tragedy.

Orthodox religious jews were dead under either Hitler or Stalin.

As for being corrupted by Elvis yeah... you are a fucking weak sister of a christian if that gets to you.

- "As for being corrupted by Elvis yeah... you are a fucking weak sister of a christian if that gets to you."


Do you read with thought anything that I post, blockhead?


Petr

Henry Morgenthau

Well yes, that was something like what I was trying to say.
"I don't care about 'collective souls'. The music you listen to, the television you watch, and the books you read are choices. Its ridiculous to be afraid of IDEAS or SOUNDS, and to compare them to outright slaughter. The notion of Charlie Parker being on some sort of equal moral plane with Beria is laughable.

Ah good old Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria,

Since then the opening of the Soviet archives and interviews with surviving eye-witnesses has allowed historians to uncover the full facts about Beria's career. In 1999 the Russian historian Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko published Beria, the first fully researched biography of Beria. This book confirmed what had long been claimed by anti-Soviet writers, but not generally believed: that in addition to his leading role in repression by the Soviet state, Beria was also a sadist and a sexual predator.

"At night he would cruise the streets of Moscow seeking out teenage girls," Antonov-Ovseyenko has said in an interview. "When he saw one who took his fancy he would have his guards deliver her to his house. Sometimes he would have his henchmen bring five, six or seven girls to him. He would make them strip, except for their shoes, and then force them into a circle on their hands and knees with their heads together. He would walk around in his dressing gown inspecting them. Then he would pull one out by her leg and haul her off to rape her. He called it the flower game."

Beria is also known to have personally tortured and killed many victims of the purges, particularly women. The graves of many of these people were subsequently discovered in the garden and cellars of his Moscow residence, now the Tunisian Embassy. In 2001 human bones were found concealed behind the kitchen walls when the building was renovated. In the cellars the walls are in places scorched black where, it is said, Beria used a blowtorch to torture confessions out of his victims.

Is there anyone here who would rather have lived in the USSR?

I would see the USSR in a much better light if they did not aid those fighting against Apartheid.

I agree with you here. Soviet support for colored Third World revolutionaries was certainly the greatest crime the Soviets committed. The USSR still had a number of Marxist trappings, so on the international scene they preached the official "anti-racist" line and supported the ANC. However, on this count they are hardly worse than many US liberals and neocons, who were equally enthusiastic about Nelson Mandela.

The point is, while the USSR officially condemned "racism" and "anti-Semitism," in practice most Soviet Republics and Eastern bloc nations remained more "racist" and "anti-Semitic" than their Western counterparts. And in practice the Soviet hierarchy from the 50's onward tended to exclude Jews from key positions in government, particularly the KGB. In other words, while Jewish power was becoming consolidated in the US, it was becoming much weaker in the USSR in spite of their lip-service to "fighting anti-Semitism."

I'm interested in hearing why thirty million people murdered is a 'lesser evil' than 'newfangled' rock and roll music and negro jazz.

Perhaps because our mass culture has produced such a dumbed-down and pig ignorant populace that they may as well be dead in many cases. It's completely mind-boggling to me how a nation so wealthy and so powerful can have so many people completely ignorant of history, politics, and basic geography because their minds are saturated to the brink with mindless "bread and circus" provided for them by their ruling classes.

The Soviets needed a gulag to keep their dissidents in line. The US has no gulags not because we're "nicer" but because our dissidents are too few and too powerless to ever make a dent. It's Brave New World (USA) vs. 1984 (USSR), and in some ways the Huxley scenario is the more frightening because it's more subtle and insiduous.

Communism kept the rabble in line at gunpoint. US consumer capitalism keeps them in line by keeping them "happy" in the most base and superficial way.

- "It's Brave New World (USA) vs. 1984 (USSR), and in some ways the Huxley scenario is the more frightening because it's more subtle and insiduous.

Communism kept the rabble in line at gunpoint. US consumer capitalism keeps them in line by keeping them "happy" in the most base and superficial way."


May I say a hearty "Amen!" on that one? I have often thought just like this myself.

It's just a classic variation between bribe and bullet, carrot and stick.

(I would only add Western Europe to the sphere of "consumer capitalism" as well.)


Petr

Is there anyone here who would rather have lived in the USSR?
I get the impression they'd rather have everyone else live there and themselves be in the party elite... typical.

Otto, the whole point of this discussion is not where we would want to live, but which superpower did more damage to racialism and nationalism.

The US is a more pleasant place to live because you won't be imprisoned for dissenting views, but that doesn't change the fact that the US has done more to subvert and deracinate the sovereign nation-state (particularly the ethno-state) than the Soviet Union. To a certain extent it is because the methods it uses (carrot rather than stick) are more insidious, but in the main it is due to the simple fact that the US, as the greater power, could also throw its weight around more and cause more damage.

Is there anyone here who would rather have lived in the USSR?

Yes. Oh wait I already did. I wish I was born in 1960 then. USSR pwns jewSA

- "Yes. Oh wait I already did. "

Were you born in the USSR?


Petr

Actually, an outsider and "infidel" has a better chance of not being purged. Why do you supposed Tariq Aziz lasted so long? He was a Catholic, and as such had absolutely no chance of coming to power in a largely Muslim nation. So unlike the others in Hussein's inner circle, Aziz was not a threat, he would never rise any higher than Deputy PM or minister of foreign affairs.
Catholic? I thought Assyrian orthodox/Copt.

Catholic? I thought Assyrian orthodox/Copt.

I had assumed that Aziz was a member of the Nestorian Church (a relic of old Christianity prior to the council of Calcaedon that servives to this day in parts of Syria and Iraq, and regarded as heretics by Orthodox and Catholic alike for their "dual nature" Christology), but since then I've seen some articles describing him as Catholic (there are a fair number of Syrian and Lebanese Catholics, so an Iraqi Catholic seems plausible).

Either way, the point is that being a Christian made Aziz safe as Hussein's #2 man, because there was never a threat that there would be popular support for a "President Aziz" among the largely Muslim Iraqi masses. It also goes to show how much BS we were fed about Saddam Hussein's government being part of an "Islamist" conspiracy and how much nonsense there is about "establishing freedom of religion in Iraq" when Hussein's Iraq had more religious freedom than any Mideast nation. What "Islamist" appoints a Christian as his second in command? While we're at it, what other Middle Eastern nations (including Israel) tolerates Christians in high government positions?

Aziz is Catholic, he even met with the Pope during the pre-war days.

Perhaps because our mass culture has produced such a dumbed-down and pig ignorant populace that they may as well be dead in many cases.


Compared to what? The icon-obsessed Russian peasant who still believes in forest spirits? The brutish semi-educated thug class with minor ties to the party reporting on his neighbors?

That 'stupid capitalist system' which put a man on the moon while the Soviets were practicing lombotomies and training dolphins to sink ships?


It's completely mind-boggling to me how a nation so wealthy and so powerful can have so many people completely ignorant of history, politics, and basic geography because their minds are saturated to the brink with mindless "bread and circus" provided for them by their ruling classes.


Explain to me why the fact that my neighbor hasn't read Tacitus equates with a death camp in a frozen wasteland.


The Soviets needed a gulag to keep their dissidents in line. The US has no gulags not because we're "nicer" but because our dissidents are too few and too powerless to ever make a dent.


Because your claims about 'oppression' are belied by your ability to complain about it.

Your argument defeats itself. You are not oppressed, thus your claims sound ridiculous. Our nation's direction is dictated by the will of the people. Not just at the ballot box, but with their paychecks. Product sales dictate product development. Box office sales dictate the nature of film.

Before the People, you have lost the argument. The people aren't interested in some dull drab police state with megaphones lecturing us about race and uniforms on every block. No functioning society with staying power has ever been particularly interested in that.

People are free to live the lives they choose. YOU can raise a child listening to Wagner and educated in Western classics from the moment he gets back from school to the time he goes to bed. Comparing your neighbor's choice of letting his kid play some video games or playing baseball with his little Jewish friend down the street to a Soviet gulag is actually laughable.

On no rational moral plane are they equal.


It's Brave New World (USA) vs. 1984 (USSR), and in some ways the Huxley scenario is the more frightening because it's more subtle and insiduous.


Its mostly in your head. You don't like the choices that your fellow citizens have made. THAT IS DIFFERENT than a tyranny forced upon you by a State which will kill you if you disobey.


Communism kept the rabble in line at gunpoint. US consumer capitalism keeps them in line by keeping them "happy" in the most base and superficial way.

LOL "Consumer capitalism" isn't a government. It isn't even an 'entity' which can conspire against you. Its more like an animal which reacts to the stimuli of the public purse.

And its amusing that you compare "shooting people" with "keeping them happy" as equal evils. Actually, thats hilarious.

Read what you say here:



Because your claims about 'oppression' are belied by your ability to complain about it.

Your argument defeats itself. You are not oppressed, thus your claims sound ridiculous. Our nation's direction is dictated by the will of the people. Not just at the ballot box, but with their paychecks. Product sales dictate product development. Box office sales dictate the nature of film.

and carefully re-read what I said in the post you are responding to:

The US has no gulags not because we're "nicer" but because our dissidents are too few and too powerless to ever make a dent.

It stands to reason that I am allowed to "complain" about the system because I am no threat to it. The reason the US doesn't need to silence dissidents, shoot people en masse, or put them into prison camps is because what dissent there exists is insignificant and marginalized, and therefore, not a threat.

If "fringe" political groups (particularly rightwing racialist groups) had a large following and stood a chance of making an impact, do you honestly believe that our government wouldn't treat them the same way the Soviets treated their dissidents? The Soviets had to use more brute force because they had more dissenting voices that were a threat to the Soviet bureaucracy. Some guy posting his tirades on a small website in no way threatens the plutocracy and the neocons, so they leave us alone in our little sandbox.

All this proves is that the American "carrot" is more effective than the Soviet "stick." And you'd be naive to believe that there is no connection between the mass media propaganda machine that fills people's heads with drivel about "global Democracy," and the government. The same social classes and ethnic groups dominate in all sectors of the ruling class. There is no need for a coordinated conspiracy or direct state control when both public and private sector alike share the same values, goals, and sense of identity.

its amusing that you compare "shooting people" with "keeping them happy" as equal evils. Actually, thats hilarious.

Providing a heroin addict with a steady supply of heroin would make him happy, but might well also lead to his demise. A similar dynamic exists with regard to the relationship between the ordinary American and the media-retail complex (for lack of a better term).

It stands to reason that I am allowed to "complain" about the system because I am no threat to it. The reason the US doesn't need to silence dissidents, shoot people en masse, or put them into prison camps is because what dissent there exists is insignificant and marginalized, and therefore, not a threat.


Oh, I see. So the evidence for the despotic nature of our nation is the absence of oppression. :p

Interesting.


If "fringe" political groups (particularly rightwing racialist groups) had a large following and stood a chance of making an impact, do you honestly believe that our government wouldn't treat them the same way the Soviets treated their dissidents?


Well, actually, if you notice the argument Fade is putting forth, the United States HAD a large number of racialist citizens who were not oppressed, but rather discredited by related foreign events.

So yes, I do believe that the notion that the US government would put racists in gulags is ridiculous indeed. You credit the American government with more power than it actually has.


The Soviets had to use more brute force because they had more dissenting voices that were a threat to the Soviet bureaucracy.


You seem to miss the underlying point about this. The Soviets had more dissidents because it was an unpopular regime. It was an unpopular regime because it was brutal. It wasn't brutal because there were dissidents, you see. There were dissidents because it was brutal.


Some guy posting his tirades on a small website in no way threatens the plutocracy and the neocons, so they leave us alone in our little sandbox.


And thus, through some strange and nebulous twist of logic, you determine that the freedom for you to dissent means the United States is a greater despotism than the USSR. :p

Well, I hate to break it to you, but even though YOUR particular fringe element is small, others are not. There are larger groups that oppose the United States within this country than racists. If you were to watch the riots in Seattle or the anti-war protests in New York, or happen to see any documentaries on the 1960s, you'd see what I'm talking about.

While no one may read some three page pamphlet ranting about 'niggers and kikes', no one is burning 'A People's History of the United States'.


All this proves is that the American "carrot" is more effective than the Soviet "stick."


Rewards....benefits.....HAPPINESS are the effective means of governing a successful state. Delivering quality of life is not an 'evil'. Giving people a peaceful atmosphere in which they can live and prosper isn't 'the same as' shooting them, en masse.


And you'd be naive to believe that there is no connection between the mass media propaganda machine that fills people's heads with drivel about "global Democracy," and the government.


"Mass propaganda machine"? Interesting. I happen to be something of a news junkie, and on any station at any given time, I can find a pundit talking about how unlikely the idea of 'global democracy' is. Turn on the Lou Dobbs Report and you'll hear him speaking against Globalization and illegal immigration nightly.

Watch FOX and you'll hear a glowing endorsement of the administration's plan. Watch CNN and listen to the thinly veiled contempt for the idea of transplanting democracy in the Middle East.

"Mass propaganda machine"? Cute soundbyte, but without substance.


The same social classes and ethnic groups dominate in all sectors of the ruling class.


What classes? What ethnic groups?


There is no need for a coordinated conspiracy or direct state control when both public and private sector alike share the same values, goals, and sense of identity.

And in what warped school of ethics led you to the belief that consensus and agreement on certain fundamental issues is equal to violent repression and state sponsored murder on the scale of millions?

Providing a heroin addict with a steady supply of heroin would make him happy, but might well also lead to his demise. A similar dynamic exists with regard to the relationship between the ordinary American and the media-retail complex (for lack of a better term).

LOL Well, I suppose if we were to manufacture hyper-absurd shadow arguments, I could say that shooting a heroin addict in the face and then sending his family to a gulag, in case they were infected with his degeneracy, where they will spend the rest of the short remainder of their lives is a great deal worse on virtually every level than giving the heroin addict $20 to spend on whatever he wants.

Oh, I see. So the evidence for the despotic nature of our nation is the absence of oppression. :p

Interesting.

No, the absence of oppression is evidence for the lack of organized dissent that might threaten the ruling classes.


You seem to miss the underlying point about this. The Soviets had more dissidents because it was an unpopular regime. It was an unpopular regime because it was brutal. It wasn't brutal because there were dissidents, you see. There were dissidents because it was brutal.

You claim that your inverted cause and effect relationship is some kind of self-evident truth. To me it isn't. My basic premise is that factions that are in power like to remain in power, and they will undertake any measures necessary to do so. If brutality is not used, it is because it is not necessary among a complacent subject people. The Soviets wouldn't resort to brutality either if they could count on the unquestioning loyalty of most of their subjects. Evidently they had no such assurances, while our rulers can rest confidently knowing that as long as the masses get their survivor episodes and Monday night football, they will happily support and fund their wars and their obscene multicultural domestic agenda.


And thus, through some strange and nebulous twist of logic, you determine that the freedom for you to dissent means the United States is a greater despotism than the USSR. :p

Once again, it is not proof of greater despotism. It is proof of the fact that our cattle are more complacent than their cattle and thus in less need of a cattle prod.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but even though YOUR particular fringe element is small, others are not. There are larger groups that oppose the United States within this country than racists. If you were to watch the riots in Seattle or the anti-war protests in New York, or happen to see any documentaries on the 1960s, you'd see what I'm talking about.

While no one may read some three page pamphlet ranting about 'niggers and kikes', no one is burning 'A People's History of the United States'.

First of all, please find a single post of mine that talks about "niggers and kikes."

Second, the sort of dissent that is fairly widespread and tolerated is within the bounds of "acceptability." The Leftist protesters in Seattle do not challenge the main dogmas that are the pillars of postmodern America - equality of races, equality of sexes, philo-Semitism. These Leftists are even more enthusiastic about postmodern American egalitarianism than those in power today. If anything, they are considered overzealous supporters of the ruling ideology. Pray tell, how do lunatics braying in the street about the evils of "racism" and "sexism" threaten a regime that fundamentally agrees with them that "racism" and "sexism" are evil?



Rewards....benefits.....HAPPINESS are the effective means of governing a successful state. Delivering quality of life is not an 'evil'. Giving people a peaceful atmosphere in which they can live and prosper isn't 'the same as' shooting them, en masse.

Have you ever read Huxley's Brave New World? I personally find the world he describes to be an even greater nightmare scenario than Orwell's. Evidently you would consider it a Utopia and a Paradise.



"Mass propaganda machine"? Interesting. I happen to be something of a news junkie, and on any station at any given time, I can find a pundit talking about how unlikely the idea of 'global democracy' is. Turn on the Lou Dobbs Report and you'll hear him speaking against Globalization and illegal immigration nightly.

Then tell me - why is it that every time the US launches an illegal war against some country, the airwaves are invariably saturated with the same lies about "official enemies" (i.e. Milosevic slaughters hundreds of thousands of Albanian women and children, Hussein's soldiers kill babies in Kuwaiti hospitals, etc)? No, there's never any propaganda on the airwaves, is there?



What classes? What ethnic groups [rule this country.

I think we both know the answer to this question.


And in what warped school of ethics led you to the belief that consensus and agreement on certain fundamental issues is equal to violent repression and state sponsored murder on the scale of millions?

This "consensus" is proof positive of a hegemonic ideology. People and political parties are allowed a fake "dissent" on trivial and secondary issues like what the capital gains tax rate should be, but how often do politicians or media elites challenge the fundamental assumptions that this should be a multiracial and multicultural society?

Last but not least, my point was NOT that life was better in the Soviet Union than in the United States. I am saying that the USSR, being a lesser economic and military power than the US, and having a less seductive ideology ("proletarian revolution" vs. bread and circus consumer culture), ultimately didn't destroy and subvert nationalist and racialist movements as effectively as the United States has. To see that that is the case, where would you find more ethno-nationalism today, in Eastern Europe or in the US and the Western bloc nations?

No, the absence of oppression is evidence for the lack of organized dissent that might threaten the ruling classes.


Well thats very convenient. You're able to accuse the system of being morally bankrupt and capable of oppression from the premise that there is no oppression because there is no 'organized dissent' to threaten the ruling classes.

Except that your claim is wrong. There is organized dissent:

International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition (San Francisco chapter) (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism)

An anti-racist, anti-war coalition. The national steering committee is comprised of BAYAN International / USA; Free Palestine Alliance / US; IFCO / Pastors for Peace; International Action Center; Kensington Welfare Rights Union; Korea Truth Commission; Mexico Solidarity Network; Middle East Children's Alliance; Muslim Student Association; Nicaragua Network; and the Partnership for Civil Justice. Founded in September 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11 to oppose US war at home and abroad. Has thousands of endorsers and more than a hundred organizing centers. Organizes large demonstrations, including the 26 Oct 2002 national marches against US war on Iraq, the largest since the Vietnam War. Organizing the People’s Anti-War Referendum & 18 Jan 2003 National Mass Demonstrations against US war on Iraq in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. in Washington DC and SF & the Grassroots Peace Congress in DC on 19 Jan 2003. The SF chapter holds regular Tuesday meetings at 7 PM.


http://www.bapd.org/ginlr-1.html

Now you notice, you throw in the qualification that it 'threatens the elites'. By saying this, in the context of your argument, that it is YOUR ideology which would 'threaten the elites', while organizations such as the one I listed above do not.

Forgive me if I take your vested interest in your ideology with a grain of salt, and suggest to you that I, as the most main stream fellow on this board, am not threatened by your ideology in the least. :D

In fact, even a cursory look at American history reveals your error. Organized dissent led to the growth of the abolitionist movement in the US, the creation of the Republican party from that, the complete withdrawl from Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, and the very creation of a leftist academic and media establishment stem from organized dissent.

No my friend, I'm afraid these are attempts to rationalize why your ideological views remain in the social margins rather than a legitimate indictment of the system itself. Even if we hate Michael Moore, he still is a dissenter. If if you dislike ANSWER or similar groups, they are still dissenters. Do they threaten the 'elites' (Whoever that might be)? As much as any other extremist. But the notion that they would be 'suppressed' if they were to gain popularity is simply false.


You claim that your inverted cause and effect relationship is some kind of self-evident truth. To me it isn't. My basic premise is that factions that are in power like to remain in power, and they will undertake any measures necessary to do so.


Example?


If brutality is not used, it is because it is not necessary among a complacent subject people.


Not in this case. Brutality simply isn't an option. The United States Army isn't a tool of a faction to be used to maintain power, and I don't believe that even with your worldview, you could actually see it being used as such.


The Soviets wouldn't resort to brutality either if they could count on the unquestioning loyalty of most of their subjects.


If. If. The question isn't "MIGHT the Soviet Union have been the lesser of two evils". The question is was it. You can't argue that something is more evil because 'hypothetically', given that we assume all of your premises are true, the US MIGHT resort to the same tactics given the right situation.

If you replace every member of the Vatican with the Revolutionary Council of Iran, and give them a brainwash so they think they're Christians instead of muslims but retain their personalities and worldviews, then put the Pope and friends in charge of the Iranian ruling council with the same deal, the Vatican would be a militant theocracy and Iran would be like the ACTUAL pacifistic Vatican. :p

So I suppose we can argue that militant Iranian Islam is the lesser evil compared to modern Catholicism.


Evidently they had no such assurances, while our rulers can rest confidently knowing that as long as the masses get their survivor episodes and Monday night football, they will happily support and fund their wars and their obscene multicultural domestic agenda.


IE, Our government doesn't need NKVD hit squads because it governs in the public's interest and provides for the public's good? :p

Let me make sure I get this straight: Your dislike of American pop culture (Which the government has nothing to do with) translates, for you, into viewing Britney Spears and Beria's gulags in the same moral plane?

So based on this, could we say that Genghis Khan was a lesser evil than the decadent Holy Roman Empire?


Once again, it is not proof of greater despotism. It is proof of the fact that our cattle are more complacent than their cattle and thus in less need of a cattle prod.


Our 'cattle'? Their 'cattle'? Soviet dissenters were protesting for AMERICAN liberties, not some kind of return to Czarist Russia. :p

Furthermore, the Soviet's largest body count came from the slaughter of ethnic, economic, and social groups rather than individual protesters and dissenters. The Ukrainian farmer wasn't starved to death because he 'wasn't complacent'. He was starved to death to feed Russian cities.

Furthermore, Soviet dissenters were dissenting against the brutality of their state. Thats the thing you don't seem to get. The brutality of their state didn't exist because of dissent. Soviet brutality was committed to wipe away the old order and establish the New Soviet. And it was the position of the Soviets that if a few skulls got cracked, then so be it.

Our state doesn't practice brutality as an arm of domestic policy. Therefore, we don't have "Southerners" protesting a famine orchestrated by Washington to feed New York. We don't have "Nevadans" protesting the redistribution of our land and the forced relocation of half our population to Wyoming.


Second, the sort of dissent that is fairly widespread and tolerated is within the bounds of "acceptability." The Leftist protesters in Seattle do not challenge the main dogmas that are the pillars of postmodern America - equality of races, equality of sexes, philo-Semitism.


LOL But these are YOUR ideas about what are the 'pillars of postmodern America'. They DO challenge global trade and capitalism, which are more real than your ridiculous 'philo-Semitism'.

And in fact, they DO challenge American relations with Israel.


If anything, these Leftists are even more enthusiastic about postmodern American egalitarianism than those in power today.


What is important to you is not important to everyone. To understand the world you must look outside yourself, AY.


If anything, they are considered overzealous supporters of the ruling ideology. Pray tell, how do lunatics braying in the street about the evils of "racism" and "sexism" threaten a regime that fundamentally agrees with them that "racism" and "sexism" are evil?


(Cough)

Bring Down the Israeli Apartheid Wall!
Join the Solidarity Fast for Justice and Peace!

In solidarity with the ongoing Palestinian hunger strike against the Israeli Apartheid Wall, and in honor of all who are struggling against war, racism and poverty across the globe, from Iraq, to Haiti, to Afghanistan and beyond, the Free Palestine Alliance calls for a “Solidarity Fast” in Tents of Justice and Peace throughout the country on the following six days.

July 24 and 25, 2004 — days leading up to the Democratic National Convention
August 28 and 29, 2004 — days leading up to the Republican National Convention
January 19 and 20, 2005 — the day before and day of the presidential inauguration
Throughout these six days, we will raise our voices high so that policy makers of the twin parties and the elected president may hear our demand for justice and dignity. Our call for a Solidarity Fast comes in full solidarity with and as part of the various events and activities planned for all these days. We call on all to join us in our fast as we pitch together Tents of Justice and Peace throughout the country, to culminate with joining the national counter-inaugural mobilization called for by the ANSWER Coalition in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2005.

On these six days,

We will fast to bring down the Apartheid Wall that is placing the Palestinian people in a segregation prison of racism and bigotry.
We will fast to call for the right to return of the Palestinian people to their homes and homeland after 56 years of exile and dispossession.
We will fast to demand an end to the colonial occupation of Iraq that is masquerading in various forms.
We will fast in solidarity with all who are struggling against poverty, racism, and war — in the United States and across the world.
We will fast in honor of people’s solidarity with each other, as we collectively reject segregation and Apartheid.


http://www.actionsf.org/apartheidwall.htm


Then tell me - why is it that every time the US launches an illegal war against some country, the airwaves are invariably saturated with the same lies about "official enemies" (i.e. Milosevic slaughters hundreds of thousands of Albanian women and children, Hussein's soldiers kill babies in Kuwaiti hospitals, etc)? No, there's never any propaganda on the airwaves, is there?



So is it your position that atrocities ascribed to Saddam and Milosevic are lies and propaganda?


This "consensus" is proof positive of a hegemonic ideology. People and political parties are allowed a fake "dissent" on trivial and secondary issues like what the capital gains tax rate should be, but how often do politicians or media elites challenge the fundamental assumptions that this should be a multiracial and multicultural society?


That debate was already had, and you lost it. It spanned about 30 years, from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Now I can understand, no one likes being marginalized. But a gentleman accepts the verdit of the people, dusts himself off, and starts over. Attempt to restart the argument.

But for you to claim that the only way your side can lose a debate is because your opposition CHEATED you and "stole" it is simply unhealthy. You seem to want to gloss over the turbulent Civil Rights era, which is convenient, but none the less inaccurate. The reality is, if there was public support for your position there would be politicians pushing it.

There are no votes in it.

That the people have decided against you is not the product of some government controlled hive mind.


Last but not least, my point was NOT that life was better in the Soviet Union than in the United States. My point was that the USSR, being a lesser economic and military power than the US, and having a less seductive ideology ("proletarian revolution" vs. bread and circus consumer culture), it ultimately didn't destroy and subvert nationalist and racialist movements as effectively as the United States has.


No, instead, lacking the scruples and accountability of the United States, the USSR simply destroyed NATIONS and RACES, killing tens of millions of people.

Though I suppose if you're interested in petty ethnic disputes and balkanization, the USSR did wonders for that. Witness every Chechan suicide bomber making his video tape with a litany of Soviet abuses against his population as justification for his acts. Witness the current situation in the Ukraine.


To see that that is the case, where would you find more ethno-nationalism today, in Eastern Europe or in the US and the Western bloc nations?

Former Warsaw Pact nations have been the ones struggling to ingratiate themselves with the United States and become more like Western nations.

Perhaps they, unlike you, realize they can't use petty tribalism to feed their children, or raise their families on 300 year old vendettas.

Now you notice, you throw in the qualification that it 'threatens the elites'. By saying this, in the context of your argument, that it is YOUR ideology which would 'threaten the elites', while organizations such as the one I listed above do not.

Forgive me if I take your vested interest in your ideology with a grain of salt, and suggest to you that I, as the most main stream fellow on this board, am not threatened by your ideology in the least.

Of course you aren't threatened by an ideology that is marginalized, and neither are the elites. I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if millions of Americans were actively in favor of overturning the Civil Rights Act, Brown vs. Board, and similar abominations.





So is it your position that atrocities ascribed to Saddam and Milosevic are lies and propaganda?

The examples I cited are lies and propaganda. The tall tales of Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti babies were fabricated by the Kuwaitis as wartime propaganda (the "nurse" who told teary-eyed US senators about it was a member of the Kuwaiti royal family).

As for Milosevic, why is it that in 1999 we were told that Milosevic killed "hundreds of thousands" of women and children, a number that has shrunk by two orders of magnitude since then and was found to consist of circa 7000 dead or missing fighting-age men? Also, the mass media you defend to no end carefully neglected to mention the fact that the Albanians had killed nearly as many Serbs as vice-versa.

And let's go further back in history. Perhaps you've heard of WWI propaganda about German soldiers sticking babies with bayonets and cutting arms off POWs?

No, our government and mass media never lie. We're never fed wartime propaganda, just the purest, unadulterated truth.


That debate was already had, and you lost it. It spanned about 30 years, from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Now I can understand, no one likes being marginalized. But a gentleman accepts the verdit of the people, dusts himself off, and starts over. Attempt to restart the argument.

But for you to claim that the only way your side can lose a debate is because your opposition CHEATED you and "stole" it is simply unhealthy. You seem to want to gloss over the turbulent Civil Rights era, which is convenient, but none the less inaccurate. The reality is, if there was public support for your position there would be politicians pushing it.

There are no votes in it.

That the people have decided against you is not the product of some government controlled hive mind.

There was and is very little "debate" about the subject. When race is the subject of discussion, the anti-racists resort of hysterical name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and outright lies about uncomfortable facts (crime statistics, intelligence test data) to advance their agenda. Racial egalitarianism stands as one of the great frauds of the 20th century, something that could only be implemented through subterfuge because it has no factual legs to stand on.

And "the people" have not "decided against me." From elementary school on, "the people" are fed a steady diet of propaganda about the evils of "racism" (rather than reading the classics, children in schools are forced to read politically correct propaganda tracts about the noble, suffering colored man). One can hardly expect to get a fair hearing in a society where Frankfurt School political correctness is hammered into people's minds by the schools and mass media from day one.



Perhaps they, unlike you, realize they can't use petty tribalism to feed their children, or raise their families on 300 year old vendettas.

That's funny. The Jews who you constantly defend have built an entire culture and religion around their petty tribalism, and they seem to have done quite well for themselves (usually at the expense of others). It's ironic that you admire and defend the most petty and tribalistic people of them all while condemning the same trait in others.