Comeraderly Tone at Stormfront

[MarxSchmarx]

I often lurk the stormfront threads just to see what the other side is up to.

One of the differences I've noticed is that the tone of the discussion at stormfront seems considerably less acrimonious than the tone of many discussions here. As a generality, the replies here seem considerably more critical of other posts. This is especially true in our "General Forum." Someone posts something, and I'd say a little more than half the replies are either critical or rebutting the other's case.

In contrast, there they seem almost ... supportive of each other? The sheer volume of "I feel for you bro having to deal with the (Jewish/Brown/Black/lefty) person down the street" kinda surprises me. And there is a sense in which they seem to weave daily life into their posts that, again, in our "General" section, rarely happens here.

Don't get me wrong. This kind of self-debate is terrific, and the last thing the left needs is to be more like these clowns. But it can also lead to the sectarian fractiousness that has seriously crippled our movement, and to be sure the fa$cists have the same divisive problem. I've read enough posts in my short time here so far to start to doubt whether the participators in a prolonged thread have changed ANYONE's mind about anything. And I think there is a lot more of that in the tenor of our posts than in theirs.

Maybe this is b/c of our no-one liner posts policy that discourages "here here" type posts. Maybe it is b/c those creeps have a siege mentality. I honestly haven't been able to figure it out.

Has anyone else gotten this impression? and more importantly...

Why do you suppose it is?

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by MarxSchmarx
As a generality, the replies here seem considerably more critical of other posts.

i think critics are good, cuz critics let us know wether we right or wrong, cuz in life, we need other's opinion.for me personally, i need other's opinion about my own opinion of everything.

so if there's a critical on your post,sometimes you may deny it if the critics are wrong, but sometimes you had to accept it if it's right, cuz if other are critical to you...it means that they love you and they want you to know what's right and what's wrong.

get what i meant??? ;)

[Taboo Tongue]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:52 pm
Has anyone else gotten this impression? and more importantly...
Why do you suppose it is?
I've gotten this impression from a pseudo-fascist Mortal Kombat forum I used to go to. I think it was because it was such a small (elitist) forum though. You really go to know 50% of the people there if you were active, through AIM, Yahoo messenger etc. There wasn't even an off topic board for a long long time.
I don't go to Storm Front very often.. ^_^ so I don't know about there

[peaccenicked]

Our community is highly individualistic, in that people tend to think for themselves.
I have a huge respect for many of the leftists on this board but would not like to share a bottle of whisky with them(well maybe some). The trouble with the right wing they are tribal they have different "intellectual'' needs, most of them are just big children, I have met a few. Had to share a room with one. Strangely I found, its like American X, its family bred. What I found strange was the inbuilt pluralism of the guy I worked with in a hotel, it was if somewhere there was a nagging suspicion that his head was up his arse. To tell you the truth I d rather share a bottle of whisky with him, and keep off politics than be with some of the OTT politically correct leftists who post here.

[Bilan]

IMO, the reason for the difference in "tone" on this board is because of our ideological differences - Anarchists, Leninists, and Stalinist's in particular. While that board is only welcoming to White Nationalists - who generally have a pretty similar definition for everything.
We seem to divide ourselves over historical examples of ideas put into plan - particularly over Russia.
IMO, we concentrate to much on our differences, and not enough on our similarities; to much on the past, and not enough on the future.

That's just my opinion though.

[RedAnarchist]

I think that, although there is unwelcome sectarianism and division on RevLeft, it can be a good thing. It allows us to grow our individual views and allows people to work better towards our goal of social revolution. However, the people st Stormfront will never progress because their ideas are too similar - its basically just bigotry, white supremacism and the "jewish conspiracy".

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by topic post
But it can also lead to the sectarian fractiousness that has seriously crippled our movement, and to be sure the fa$cists have the same divisive problem.

I agree the revolutionary movement is not exactly super-effective at the moment but thats a complex situation, and i really dont think its the 'sectarian' thing that's bringing us down.

But for the fash? It's far far worse; the white nationalist movement is so easily divided by personality differences (coz its so small, and well personality driven, it's politics for sheep not critical thinkers) and the most inane things (like feuds over imagery, what flags to use, i.e. full-blown nazi lovers vs. more subtle racist nationalists or 'that guy cant be a white nationalist, he has a jewish nose!' etc.) It's really pathetic but hilarious and encouraging to read! So yeah, i reckon the fash are much more divided and ineffectual than the revleft could ever 'hope' to be!

[Janus]

In contrast, there they seem almost ... supportive of each other? The sheer volume of "I feel for you bro having to deal with the (Jewish/Brown/Black/lefty) person down the street" kinda surprises me.
That's because they generally show support for each other on issues that they all agree on something which happens on RL as well particularly in the Antifascism forum. Besides, the white nationalist movement doesn't have many theoretical divides (they don't have much theory to begin with) as opposed to the radical left, rather their splits are mostly due to interpersonal conflict.

[Wanted Man]

Oh, but the far right is very much divided.

There are the suit-and-tie crypto-fascists who have gotten rid of anti-semitic prejudice, and now favour cooperation with neo-conservatism and defending Israel at all cost. While at home they desire the crushing of unions, the continued witch hunt against Islam, the stopping of immigration, and the crushing of dissent through force (for example, the Dutch far-right parliamentary Geert Wilders, who has said: "Police should be authorised to use live ammunition against football rioters, whether Dutch or Moroccan, squatters, anti-globalists, and other deplorable scum"). One of the many bankruptcies of the Antideutsche is that they fail to see this, and have honoured people like Theo van Gogh while taking the side of the Dutch far-right.

Many white nationalists see this as an outrage, and have called people like Wilders "jew huggers". Within them, there is also the argument over whether to cooperate with the Jewish Defence League or not, which many of them obviously do not want. Then there is the discussion of whether they should stand for elections, not wave with swastikas, and generally look more "clean", or whether they should consist of boneheads with swastikas marching down the street trying to start their "national revolution" or whatever.

Also, there was division on the Yugoslav wars, some went to volunteer for the Croatian fascists "against Serb communism", while others wanted to support Milosevic "against imperialism".

Anyway, here is some info on all the different far right groups here, it's rather outdated though:

http://kafka.antifa.net/english.htm