What is this guy? Right Wingers help....

[RadioRaheem84]

Moderators, feel free to delete the similar post in chit chat...

The guy I am debating knows his stuff, yet it reeks of right wing NWO history.

When someone says that that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were financed by Germany to get Russia out of the war and it was mostly out of the pockets of German Jews, are they NWO/Bircher nutters? Perhaps a Randian Objectivist with Rothbard on the brain.....

Other nuggets:

Quote:
"How can you make the excuse that 30 million people died simply because Stalin wanted to industrialize Russia? How does that make a lick of sense?? Last time I checked, the United States, France, England, Japan, and a plethora of other nations managed to industrialize their respective nations fairly quickly without murdering millions. But for some reason Stalin needed to murder 30 million in order to do it? Logic isn't exactly your speciality.
Quote:
Communism failed because it was imposed on an agrarian society as opposed to an industrial one, the same reason why it failed in China, Cuba, and most everywhere else. Marx's prophecies about international revolutions in the industrialized nations never came to fruition because he wasn't smart enough to realize that the reason why those nations were so successful to begin with was because of the free market that resulted in trade, competition, and innovation; in short, they were successful because of the disparity between wealth and class, not in spite of it. Why do you think the USSR was almost totally dependent on the United States during WW2 for its materials? Why do you think both the USSR and Red China fell far behind in science and innovation when compared to the US and Western Europe? Because their political systems did not allow for internal innovation. "


Quote:
Do some research into who funded the Bolsheviks and you'll get your answer; it was primarily Germans and German-Jews on Wall Street; capitalists, nonetheless
Quote:
Nazi Germany was a far smaller "slaughter machine" than communist Russia, first and foremost, and secondly, the reason why Germany was transformed from a hellhole with mass starvation and unemployment under the Weimar years into one of the biggest economic, military, and industrial powers in the world was because they happened to have a genius named Hjalmar Schacht presiding over their economic development. One of the most interesting aspects about the Nazi economy was the way they circumvented the central banks and adopted a quasi-barter system with other nations in South America and Europe, i.e. one raw material for another. "Imperialism" was only part of the equation; the country's expanding military-industrial complex was a factor, but it took a back seat to the country's nationalization and increased trade that ended unemployment and inflation within a few short years, something that the USSR couldn't do in 70. Is this guy a Nazi sympathizer? Something tells me he is very Rothbardian.

any help?

[ComradeMan]

Nazi Germany was a far smaller "slaughter machine" than communist Russia, first and foremost, and secondly, the reason why Germany was transformed from a hellhole with mass starvation and unemployment under the Weimar years into one of the biggest economic, military, and industrial powers in the world was because they happened to have a genius named Hjalmar Schacht presiding over their economic development. One of the most interesting aspects about the Nazi economy was the way they circumvented the central banks and adopted a quasi-barter system with other nations in South America and Europe, i.e. one raw material for another. "Imperialism" was only part of the equation; the country's expanding military-industrial complex was a factor, but it took a back seat to the country's nationalization and increased trade that ended unemployment and inflation within a few short years, something that the USSR couldn't do in 70.

Nazi Germany was a far smaller "slaughter machine" than communist Russia,

LOL!! Reactionary prick-- reveals all. It's not about numbers to start with and secondly, communist Russia? Stalinist Russia...

[L.A.P.]

It's not his facts that are making him stump you, it's his tactics. The fact that capitalists funded the Russian Revolution for capitalist's interest is just complete utter bullshit and you need to call that out. Nazi Germany better than Soviet Union, give me a break. If he doesn't know that the United Sates, Japan, France, etc. didn't kill and oppress millions of people to get where they are today then he's just a plain idiot. Don't let his pseudo-intellectual ways get the best of convincing you that he knows his shit because obviously he doesn't. If I didn't know any better I would guess he's a Fascist but more of a Neo-Fascist who would be part of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party or some other stupid wannabe trendy fascist organization like that.

[danyboy27]

Nazi germany was an utterly destructive regime, leaving trail of mess everywhere they went, making things worst, for the worst.

The only reason why Nazi germany might look ''good'' compared to russia is beccause their understanding of the psychology of masses was vastly superior in every way.

Gobbels was verry good, he did everything he could to unify germany around the state; deutch arbeit front to replace the union, free cruise for the poor, so they wouldnt feel less in power than the rich, spectacles, art show, nazi germany community programs.

Hell, they been able to make the german ''forget'' about the existance of the jews by changing the hours the jews where allowed to go out.

slowly executing mentally diseased people for the good of the people under an ''euthanasia'' program.

the soviet governement sucked at manipulating their own people, even when it was time to make them achieve good stuff, they where forced to use extreme violence every time they wanted something, they had to use some kind of violence beccause of their inability to use psychology.

But bottom line, the soviet governement was able to somehow make it up for their violence, by building something, not just destroying stuff like the nazi did.

Its just a fucking shame, with more psychology, the soviet governement could have done even more with less casualities. Take notice that the bulk of the purges stopped after ww2, they probably learned a thing or two about human psychology during the nuremberg trial, when they been able to withness how you can make someone do incredibly unpleasant things for the fatherland without threatening him to punish his family.

[Baseball]

the soviet governement sucked at manipulating their own people, even when it was time to make them achieve good stuff, they where forced to use extreme violence every time they wanted something, they had to use some kind of violence beccause of their inability to use psychology.

But bottom line, the soviet governement was able to somehow make it up for their violence, by building something, not just destroying stuff like the nazi did.

Its just a fucking shame, with more psychology, the soviet governement could have done even more with less casualities. Take notice that the bulk of the purges stopped after ww2, they probably learned a thing or two about human psychology during the nuremberg trial, when they been able to withness how you can make someone do incredibly unpleasant things for the fatherland without threatening him to punish his family.

What a hell of a conclusion!! The National Socialists in Germany did a better job of delivering goods and services than did the Communists in the USSR because the latter wasn't as skilled or as talented in applying socialism as the former.

[#FF0000]

What a hell of a conclusion!! The National Socialists in Germany did a better job of delivering goods and services than did the Communists in the USSR because the latter wasn't as skilled or as talented in applying socialism as the former.

You are blinkered beyond reason if that's honestly how you read that post.

[Revolution starts with U]

"How can you make the excuse that 30 million people died simply because Stalin wanted to industrialize Russia? How does that make a lick of sense?? Last time I checked, the United States, France, England, Japan, and a plethora of other nations managed to industrialize their respective nations fairly quickly without murdering millions. But for some reason Stalin needed to murder 30 million in order to do it? Logic isn't exactly your speciality.
Here's where you say "I agree, native americans, africans, and indians aren't really people. I mean, you don't see me crying about the buffalo."


Communism failed because it was imposed on an agrarian society as opposed to an industrial one, the same reason why it failed in China, Cuba, and most everywhere else. Marx's prophecies about international revolutions in the industrialized nations never came to fruition because he wasn't smart enough to realize that the reason why those nations were so successful to begin with was because of the free market that resulted in trade, competition, and innovation; in short, they were successful because of the disparity between wealth and class, not in spite of it. Why do you think the USSR was almost totally dependent on the United States during WW2 for its materials? Why do you think both the USSR and Red China fell far behind in science and innovation when compared to the US and Western Europe? Because their political systems did not allow for internal innovatio
That says more about political democracy than capitalism. I really don't see any reference to capitalism at all.

Do some research into who funded the Bolsheviks and you'll get your answer; it was primarily Germans and German-Jews on Wall Street; capitalists, nonetheless
I would like to see the citations for this. It would not surprise me (who has all the money? :rolleyes:). But I would just like to know.


Nazi Germany was a far smaller "slaughter machine" than communist Russia, first and foremost, and secondly, the reason why Germany was transformed from a hellhole with mass starvation and unemployment under the Weimar years into one of the biggest economic, military, and industrial powers in the world was because they happened to have a genius named Hjalmar Schacht presiding over their economic development. One of the most interesting aspects about the Nazi economy was the way they circumvented the central banks and adopted a quasi-barter system with other nations in South America and Europe, i.e. one raw material for another. "Imperialism" was only part of the equation; the country's expanding military-industrial complex was a factor, but it took a back seat to the country's nationalization and increased trade that ended unemployment and inflation within a few short years, something that the USSR couldn't do in 70
"Easy to build an economy on slave labor." ~Every tyrant in history
"Especially if you just work them till they can't work any more, and then kill'em. This solves the lost money of having to actually take care of them :thumbup1:." ~Hitler

[Bud Struggle]

I don't see him as a Fascist. Some of the things he said are pretty rediculous--like the Capitalists funding the creation of the Soviet Union, but that's just a factual error. Either he has proof for it or not.

On the other hand the points he make about the reason for the continual failure of Communism because of Revolutions happening not in industrial countries but in agricultural societies, makes a lot of sense. Societies that begin as agrarian Revolutions tend to make choices based on agrarian situations and have a difficult time developing a correct Proletarian society.

With some better facts he might be interesting. Invite him to come into OI and then everyone could see what he really things.

[Demogorgon]

I'm not going to go into the details of this crap but to take the argument about Nazi Germany being an economic powerhouse. He doesn't know his facts. First of all the Weimer Republic was hardly as bad as he describes it. During much of the twenties it was reasonably prosperous and once the depression hit there was certainly mass employment and poverty, but people weren't starving.

To the main point, the Nazis hardly benefitted the German economy at all. Industries associated with the Military grew enormously but other industries experienced decline. And unemployment continued, it was merely shifted onto groups that the Nazis wished to persecute and also by restricting employment opportunities for women in order to make it easier for Men to get jobs.

Also don't forget that the whole economy was being sustained by extremely high Government borrowing. The Nazis combined very low taxes with considerable military spending as well as fairly standard public services (the non military public sector continued to operate relatively normally) and that can hardly last forever. Even without the war the regime may actually have been brought down by total economic collapse given the precarious state of its finances.

[ComradeMan]

Doe he mention the "economic powerhouse" of Nazi Germany also being based on theft and expropriation too? Does he mention the "economic powerhouse" of Nazi Germany depending on oil supplies from.... Stalin? Does he mention that the "economic powerhouse" of Nazi Germany was also based on all kinds of cons and tricks of the German people? The people's car scheme comes to mind too....

Germany went to war economically because it's short-term economic "miracle" was beginning to fail and so it went on a wholesale looting and pillaging raid (Vikings???) of Europe- more successful in the West than the East.

[Nolan]

What a hell of a conclusion!! The National Socialists in Germany did a better job of delivering goods and services than did the Communists in the USSR because the latter wasn't as skilled or as talented in applying socialism as the former.

Aside from everything else that's wrong with this post, you still think nazism is socialism?

[danyboy27]

What a hell of a conclusion!! The National Socialists in Germany did a better job of delivering goods and services than did the Communists in the USSR because the latter wasn't as skilled or as talented in applying socialism as the former.

i never meant that, please re-read my post.

I said that, even if nazi germany had a better understanding of human psychology than the USSR, their regime was less stable than the USSR.

Basicly, without any form of conflict, nazi germany would have been bankrupted in 1939, too much investement in the military, constant war was needed to feed the machine, the brief prosperous moment nazi germany had until 1939 was only possible by contracting huge loan to military buisness like IG farben, something had to be done to paypack this money, so they invaded poland for a goal that was both political and economic.

At least, the efforts the soviet union deployed where at long term more substainable and didnt required a constant war to keep it afloat.


i am not forgiving what the soviet union did, Centralisation wasted a ton of ressources and ruined the lives of million of peoples, but you cant say that a country like germany back then was better beccause the internal turnmoil seemed less worst.

botton line, both system where flawed, but the most flawed of all was nazi germany beccause it was unsustanable.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wow! This guy is sounding more and more like a neo-fascist Bell Curve loving social Darwinist.

More nuggets:


Okay, this is basically a lot of ideological nonsense that's not based in science, facts, or reason. Human civilization plays out according to the laws of genetics; the stronger, more intelligent people prosper while the weaker and dumber fall behind. This is unpleasant, but it's a fact of life. You seem content on blaming the ills of the third world on the evil westerners but did you ever stop to wonder why the third world never had the ability to fend off the westerners to begin with? It's because evolution played out in such a way that genetic characteristics that favored intelligence and creativity were passed on in some societies and not others. Northern Europe, for example, has a highly intelligent populace due to its harsh natural environment that selected for genetic characteristics which favored intelligence over physical ability. This allowed humans to thrive in what was ostensibly a hostile environment with little food, something which requires a high degree of intelligence. In many parts of the third world, it was just the opposite. This is why the third world was backwards long before the evil Europeans arrived.



Your notion of "class struggle" is based on the fallacy that humans are equal in both cognitive and physical ability and that differences in quality of life are the result of political power or economics. It's not. Inequality is the result of genetics and biology; inequality is what evolution is all about. Look around you at the natural world; what equality is there? Humans are sentient, but they're still a part of the animal kingdom, and thus, still governed by the same biological laws. A man and woman who both have high IQs will have a child who is similarly highly intelligent and thus have a higher chance of achieving success in life, whether artistic, financial, or cultural. Two low IQ laborers who have a child will most likely- not always- have a low-IQ child. That low IQ child will likely grow up to work for the afore mentioned high IQ child. That's just how genetics works. That's how human society has always functioned. In today's knowledge-based economy the disparity between the rich and poor is only going to get bigger. Sad but true.



Again, how exactly was Yeltsin a murderer? An incompetent drunk? Yes. But how was he a murderer?



There was imperialism to be sure but these nations did not murder their own populaces en masse. That's the difference. All nations have histories of invading regions and countries that they have no business being in; that's not the point. The point is that these countries did what was best for their populaces and managed to industrialize themselves without millions of dead bodies being thrown into mass graves.

[GPDP]

Yup, you got a knuckle-dragging fascist in your hands. Proceed to beat him with a bat.

[IcarusAngel]

The guy sounds like an Austrian economist to me. Read Rothbardian, Hoppean stuff. It is basically exactly like this, and they even take it to the extreme that the property owners have the right to force the mentally disabled to be their slaves (a position that Block also takes).

[danyboy27]

Wow! This guy is sounding more and more like a neo-fascist Bell Curve loving social Darwinist.

More nuggets:

hahahaha, love the double standard: when a regime attack its own people, its worst than when he attack other folks, stupid reasoning.

He is right about Elstin tho, He is not a murderer, he an incompetent fool who had to deal with a bankrupted system, and he did, well, what any other foolish people would have done in his place.

I could be wrong tho, i dont know his history, i dunno if he actually killed someone in real life.

what he say about the weak and the strong is quite stupid, mankind have a long history of taking care of its wounded and weak folks, if we would be really living in that kind of darwinian hell, we would be all cremated at the age of 70 and transformed into some kind of soyen green.

anyway, he arguing against a ghost, beccause claiming China and RUssia where communist at any point of modern history is like saying that the governement of the united state is communist beccause they have road and post offices, its absurd.

[RadioRaheem84]

The guy sounds like an Austrian economist to me. Read Rothbardian, Hoppean stuff. It is basically exactly like this, and they even take it to the extreme that the property owners have the right to force the mentally disabled to be their slaves (a position that Block also takes).


What the blunt? Are you serious?

[The Douche]

Sounds like the modern american fascists, who reject the statist elements of NS and create their own history of various events, usually based around making NS into something american, and being staunchly against all things communist.

Read stormfront, you'll probably find him posting there.

[Dimentio]

Lenin was financed by the German government. Everyone knows about it.

There was a Jewish banker who financed the Kerensky government in Russia, Jacob Schiff. His reason was that he was anti-tsarist.

[ComradeMan]

Lenin was financed by the German government. Everyone knows about it.

There was a Jewish banker who financed the Kerensky government in Russia, Jacob Schiff. His reason was that he was anti-tsarist.

Jacob Schiff was a capitalist, and Jewish- he funded the anti-tsarist revolution of Lenin because of the terrible persecution of Jews and general anti-Semitism perpetuated by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Romanovs, pogroms etc.

This was ideological propaganda gold- because then when the Bolsheviks went off the plot the fascists/nazis could use this "fact" to "prove" that the Jews were conspiring to destroy Western Civilisation etc etc. Nazi lunatics and NWO freaks dig this one up all the time, along with Freemasons, Aliens and Reptilians...

[Dimentio]

Only fascists claim that Schiff financed the bolsheviks. He financed the provisional government though.

[RadioRaheem84]

He will not tell me what his politcs are even though I made it a point to tell him I am a communist. Instead I get this:


I've been a registered independent since I was 18. I believe every country should do what's best for its populace. This basically means England for the English, Germany for the Germans, Russia for the Russians, Japanese for the Japanese, and so on. If you consider this nationalism then so be it. It's the only thing that makes sense politically.


No, what frightened US leaders was the USSR sending its envoys and missionaries into third world nations and turning them into communist dictatorships as well. Hence the policy of Containment.


I quite debating this guy. He is an obvious right wing nutcase of NWO, Bircher or perhaps neo-fascist persuasion.


How come I don't see you praising the Nazis for turning Germany into a wealthy, affluent society where Germans were actually pretty well off? They were exponentially more successful- economically, scientifically, militarily, and technologically- than the Soviets ever were. Heck the very reason why we went to the moon was because we brought a slew of Nazi scientists over to the US after the war was over. Most of our space technology is based on their discoveries. So why do you defend a failed dictatorship like the Soviet Union and not a successful one- temporarily- like Nazi Germany? Doesn't it make more sense to defend the one that actually had some accomplishments?

[Revolution starts with U]

Sputnik?

[RadioRaheem84]

I know right. What scared the shit out of the US and the West was the fact that the USSR achieved so much.

[Lt. Ferret]

East Germans. c'mon guys. nazis can explain everything if you try hard enough.

[Amphictyonis]

Everything thats wrong with capitalism is communism's fault (even though communism has never existed). Right wing NWO Rothbardian borderline NAZI speak in one sentence :)
Wars need funding. Yes. According to their bible, 'The Creature From Jekyll Island' capitalism as we see now is actually a communist conspiracy created by the Rothschild family. They even say the Rothschilds funded Hitler then towards the end of the war, after millions of Jews had been killed, pulled funding so, in the end, a Jewish state could be created. They managed to blame Jews for the [email protected]#$!

I get lost in teh right wing conspiracy world after about 5 minutes. Bizarre stuff. Objectionable and downright fukt ways of thinking.

[Rafiq]

"How can you make the excuse that 30 million people died simply because Stalin wanted to industrialize Russia? How does that make a lick of sense?? Last time I checked, the United States, France, England, Japan, and a plethora of other nations managed to industrialize their respective nations fairly quickly without murdering millions. But for some reason Stalin needed to murder 30 million in order to do it? Logic isn't exactly your speciality.

The United States, France, England and Japan killed far more than 30 million people to industrialize.... Just because they didn't do it as much domestically, doesn't mean the life of a murdered Guatemalan or North African is inferior.

Plus, I'm pretty sure Stalin didn't kill any where near thirty million people.

[ComradeMan]

The United States, France, England and Japan killed far more than 30 million people to industrialize.... Just because they didn't do it as much domestically, doesn't mean the life of a murdered Guatemalan or North African is inferior.

Plus, I'm pretty sure Stalin didn't kill any where near thirty million people.

Did they? Have you got a country by country breakdown for this? How can you attribute the deaths in Britain to industrialisation? Wasn't there a population explosion? The US- did commit genocide in a sense against the indigenous peoples, but was that in the name of industrialisation? France? Don't know about Japan either. But 30 million is a big number to throw around and you suggest more.

I think we need to be careful with this throwing around numbers of who killed who and how many....

Was all of this in the name of industrialisation?

I think this is too simplistic a way to put it....