.

Archive for April, 2011

Moral code of the builder of Communism

Friday, April 29th, 2011

The Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union specified the following as the moral code of the builder communism. To be a good communist, it is necessary to adhere to collectivism, encourage friendship with all peoples,and demonstrate intolerance for oppressors, parasites, and injustice. Work must be motivated not because of earnings, but because of moral obligations to the community.

Devotion to the communist cause; love of the socialist motherland.

Conscientious labour for the good of society—he who does not work, neither shall he eat;

Concern on the part of everyone for the preservation and growth of public wealth;

A high sense of public duty; intolerance of actions harmful to the public interest;

Collectivism and comradely mutual assistance’, one for all and all for one;

Humane relations and mutual respect between individuals—man is to man a friend, comrade and brother;

Honesty and truthfulness, moral purity, modesty, and unpretentiousness in social and private life;

Mutual respect in the family, and concern for the upbringing of children;

An uncompromising attitude to injustice, parasitism, dishonesty, careerism and money-grubbing;

Friendship and brotherhood among all peoples.; intolerance of national and racial hatred;

An uncompromising attitude to the enemies of communism, peace and the freedom of nations;

Fraternal solidarity with the working people of all countries, and with all peoples

NATO terrorists target Leader Gadhafi

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed reports that NATO terrorists conducted an overnight bombing raid of an office complex used by Libya’s Revolutionary Leader Moammar Gadhafi in the capitol city of Tripoli.

Libyan media, including the official Jamahiriya News Network (JANA), denounced the raid as an indefensible assassination attempt on the popular leader – who is taking charge of the country’s civil and military defense against NATO provocateurs and the Western-backed insurgency.

NATO spokespeople told the New York Times that the “strategic bombing” was intended to “influence” Libyan military and government leaders to abandon their positions – in other words, implement a regime change.

While the US has up until now refused to take a clear official position on the conflict in Libya – it’s been abundantly clear since the beginning that the US is indeed intent on ousting Libya’s rightful government and instead replacing it with a more pliable regime willing to negotiate lucrative oil contracts and other business dealings with Washington and its allies in a post-Gadhafi Libya.

Meanwhile – the war-mongers in the US have called on President Obama to use the United States’ “full military capacity” in liquidating Gadhafi – a clear violation of the original UN resolution which originally restricted foreign intervention to maintaining a “no-fly zone” over Libya.

In a New York Times editorial today (aptly titled ‘Finish the job’), Lt. Gen. James Dubik (Ret.) urged the United States’ government to take the next “logical” course of action – dedicating ground troops in a full-scale, multi-national invasion of Libya.

The intense lobbying and provocation which brought about Western intervention in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other locales is building on Capitol Hill – as conservatives and liberals alike look to the President to dedicate more resources to escalating the conflict in Libya – which has now progressed into a full-scale civil war (thanks entirely to the efforts of foreign interventionists).

America’s war-mongers and profiteers have set their eyes on Libya undoubtedly for its massive oil reserves — the largest reserve in the entire African continent and ninth largest in the world (totaling in at an estimated 41.5 billion barrels). With its low cost of production (estimated at around $1 per barrel in some regions) and close proximity to the European market – US and other western oil companies would be able to reap staggering profits if it were able to secure a deal with a pro-capitalist regime in place of Gadhafi and Libya’s revolutionary government.

Though the Obama administration has publicly expressed an unwillingness to embroil itself in yet another fruitless occupation – this comes from the same administration that previously promised to reduce troop numbers in occupied Afghanistan — only to later commit an extra 30,000 more soldiers in less than one-year in office.

NATO’s terrorist campaign against the Libyan people is a complete and total violation of Libya’s rights as a sovereign nation – and should be ended immediately. The people of Libya support the government of Leader Gadhafi, and will not be bullied into succumbing to a foreign-backed government that takes no issue with whoring the country’s resources to Western investors and speculators.

Free Media Productions demands the immediate withdrawal of ALL foreign troops, warplanes, advisors, and “peacekeeping” forces from Libyan soil and complete restoration of Libyan sovereignty.

Internationalism vs. Decay

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

Most Marxists say they stand for internationalism.

That means that Marxists stand for nations. Because without nations, you can’t have internationalism. Without organs, you can’t have a human body. Without different types of plants, you can’t have an ecosystem.

Individualism and internationalism are not the same thing. Liberalism and internationalism are not the same thing.

The struggle for class conscious ideology is worldwide. It is capitalism, however, that attempts to “melt” and alienate people away from collective identities, not Marxism.

The Conflict with the Phora Explained

Monday, April 25th, 2011

edit: It should be noted that thephora.net “hacked” thephora.com by posing as a legitimate authority to gain access to thephora.com’s old database after thephora.com had dismantled. Overwatch/88mmflak/xenix hacked thephora database and then uploaded it to thephora.net. A third forum, “http://www.thephora.co,” has been created to mock these people who richly deserve it and never apologized for the mess they left.

Let’s try to be objective and look at it from their viewpoint. Their viewpoint is that I threatened the forum, therefore I deserved to have information outed and my name splashed over vnnforum and google.

Their viewpoint was that I first threatened prac stal / azimuth (receiving a one month ban), then I escalated and threatened the entire forum, both times using Jewish Task Force forum. I therefore deserved to be permbanned.

Their viewpoint is shallow and cowardly. They are lying by omission, and they know it. Yet they continue to lie.

I threatened prak stal only because he was threatening to go onto the jtf forum and sign up an account, pretending to be me. He had done this on two other websites : speakeasy and inverted world. He had previously done it on the JTF. When he signed up as “kane123123″ on jtf, he nearly got me banned. I had to explain the whole situation, how I was in fact “eagleeye” on that forum, and how prak was a troublemaking troll using a name that was associated with me. He even passed around passwords for the account in the speakeasy situation in the phora shoutbox, basically saying “ha ha ha, I’m logged in as kane pretending to be him, why not help me.” In the case of inverted world, he copied his own post, wrote it as “kane,” and then accused me of plagiarism. The entire forum of delusional degenerates collapsed on me and “ganged up,” lacking the intelligence to see that I was (obviously) being set up. People were openly calling for banning for something that was not my fault, and even when my name was cleared, they did not stop. He was threatening to do the same thing to the Jewish task force. He was explicitly threatening this. So I threatened to show his ip to the jewish task force. I had his ip because he trolled my forum (scopevision) with an account.

For this the phora gave me a one month ban. Give me a break! Prak should have been banned! This is your “free speech.” Yet you have an entire thread dedicated to banning people for ideological disagreements, and you call yourself a free speech forum?

After this the phora took my picture, and put it as an avatar on my account, attaching it 6,000 different posts and photoshopping it. I kindly asked them to take it down. But instead of taking it down, they created a fake account and mocked me on the forum, while I was still banned.
Obviously I wasn’t too happy, so I banned all phora members from my own forum and told the JTF about them and encouraged peope to shut down the phora by going at their host.

For this I was permantely banned. Good riddance. I didn’t want another thing to do with them.

But it didn’t stop there. Being a bunch of deragned psychopaths, they were so used to piling on me and obessing with me, that they went to a neo-nazi forum (vnnforum) and got the admin “Alex Linder” to start a thread about the whole event, completely skewing and distoring it. I went there to correct the libel, and the admin of the phora posted my name, address and phone number. It still sits there in google for anyone who googles my name. Years later, when “Fade / Hunter Wallace,” a collaborator of mine is attacked by vnnforum, I am also attacked via association.

Obviously I wasn’t too happy about this, so I created a few forums that were php modified to track the passwords of users. I used it to break into accounts and out the identity of traitors. It was leveling the playing field, because the phora had cowardly attacked my real name, while hiding behind anonymous names. I am not sorry.

It should be noted that about a year later, 2008 to early 2009, free media productions was operating as the successor to the lyceum. Free Media Productions removed all references to the phora and hid all threads about the phora. However while I ignored them, they did not ignore me. Prak Stal was on vnnforum posting my name in little white letters, that google could pick up but nobody else could see. At some point I get annoyed, and decided that I will withdrawal the ban on phora related material, and allow free media productions to openly discuss the phora. This happens in mid 2009. They had a chance to end the conflict, but they kept it going. During the time between the fall of the original lyceum and the rise of Free Media Productions (2007-2008), I posted on a blog “Odessa Syndicate : Far Left – Far Right Synthesis” and never used it to bash the phora.

Still, the psychopathic phora mental cases could not have enough. They had to follow me to another forum in which I was gaining popularity, stumble inn, and ruin what I was building. “Macrobius” harassed my father’s work place with a phone call and my parent’s house had received phone calls earlier. I had left their forum, yet they have a psychotic need to follow me everywhere I go.

The same thing happens when I finally get annoyed, because a poster “il ragno” continues to post pictures of family members and their spouses on stumble inn. During this time, he is rewarded with a promotion to “supermoderator” on the phora. He continues to post my real name. So did a poster “Johnson.” But a phora member joins stumble inn and becomes an administrator, and he completely destroys the forum by inviting other phora people. He tolerates everything il ragno is doing. When I finally flip out and start to publish the identities of the major phora posters on my website, he sides with il ragno, not with me. Muade is a complete traitor and he should be kicked off of the forum. Il Ragno posted my employer near the end of my time on stumble inn and I have now deduced retroactively that he contacted another employer in 2009, while I was there. At this point Il Ragno had my picture in his signature on three different forums. I successfully got it removed on two, but the phora would not remove it. I contacted administrator “starr” (who everyone always calls “innocent”), and she basically ignored my requests to have the photo removed. Therefore I figured that I was going to give the phora a taste of its own medicine, and let her family know what her forum was up to. The picture was then removed.

So I leave the stumble inn and go to the beer barrel, and the forum there has ZERO traffic. I am invited by “edmonds fitzgerald,” a poster I happen to like. It starts to build and we have good group of people. I am not posting as my name, but as “hurrikane.” All of a sudden 10-15 psychotic phoraphags decide that they are going to jump and follow me. Apocales, being an incompetent asshole of an admin, exploits the situation and allows my employer to be posted four times (I lose my job with a garage developing “company” at this time). I risked everything. I gave up my spot on stumble inn just to jump to another forum, resulting in a ban. I risked it for nothing. This opportunist asshole allows il ragno to continue the same bullshit on his forum that I left to get away from on stumble inn.

I start to send some irritated emails, messages and general rants in the direction of the phora. At one point il ragno responds by posting a “dossier.” I recognize some grammatical clues in it that have convinced me that Il Ragno has indeed contacted two different employers, as far back in 2009, one before we suspected him of being Michael Musto.

I get annoyed with this constant posting of personal information, and editing of my account to switch it to my real name, so I get the host to shut down the beer barrel. Then they switch to a new host and continue their degeneracy to this day.

While all of this is happening, over the last four years, pathological phoraphags are setting up all kinds of real name impersonation profiles in youtube, myspace and google blogger. I finally say “enough is enough” and tell the fbi about it, and I’m not sorry. Nobody has the right to post as me.

Simple searches for the words “kane*” on the phora, which includes “kane” and “kane123123,” prove that they have discussed me too much after I have left their website. But most of their discussion about me is hidden in a secret part of the forum, called the shoutbox. The reason large amounts of posters believe the libel about me is that they have drilled it into people’s heads for four years. This post should counteract their propaganda. I am on the right side of this conflict and the phora is on the wrong side.

While they claim to stand for free speech, they are a misleading forum which bullies people. They care about their standing and respect in the circles of the so-called official “white nationalist movement,” and only keep docile and unskilled debaters who take up other ideologies and affiliations. The bottom line is that if you do not think William Pierce and Alex Linder are your heroes and you are a good debater, then the phora will mistreat you, even though they give a phony illusion of free speech. If you are an unskilled debater, then they will keep you, so that they can give an illusion of supremacy to their ideological line.

It should be noted that quite a few people have been purged from the phora. The guy I mentioned earlier, “Fade the butcher” / Hunter Wallace, originally created the phora. Yet he was kicked out of his own forum a few years later. Many of the Socialist posters, who range from Orthodox Marxists to anti-Materialists, left the phora voluntarily. In the case of Mazdak / Billy Score, a loss of mod powers contributed to this, discrediting the idea of the phora as a multi-ideological forum. Even a neo-nazi “b-pep” left to side with Marxists. That is how many people were annoyed. After the short-lived Odessa Syndicate was taken down by Prozium / Hunter Wallace/ Fade, he continued with his website “Occidental Dissent” of which I am not involved. Fade has not discussed the phora ever, yet they continue to discuss him regularly.

The phora is a fraudulent forum and not a free speech forum. This is the last time I will discuss the phora on this blog. It is worth noting, however, that the phora has outwardly matured a bit since 2007. The same thing cannot be said about the beer barrel. It really is a sewer.

Now perhaps I did not have the social skills and temperament to properly handle the abuse at the time of the phora in 2007. But the bottom line is that I was a 21 year old kid, and these were full grown unemployed “men” and “women” who had a gang of 15 people breathing down my neck. And you want to talk to me about temperament? It’s ridiculous to blame the conflict on me. Why am I expected to be the bigger and better person?

My experience in the business world has taught me that poorly run companies tend to blame their employees for their own failure. During the recession, many employers said nasty things to their employees as they laid them off, when in fact the employee is not the cause of the problem. In the world of internet forums, it is similar. Poorly run forums tend to blame an individual member for their lack of stability as a community. When the phora becomes a circus, they like to target a single member instead of reflect on their own leadership and inept capacity to manage. Let’s look at this logically. If the phora allows the community to spiral downwards, then it will fall apart. But if they promise the community a better future, and blame a poster, they unify the community. Then they can produce many threads attacking that member, and with the low quality standards of the phora, those threads boost quantity so that’s all that matters to them. Some of their accusations are so outwardly stupid that a person of troubled intelligence could refute them. For instance the phora frequently accuses me of posting more than every other poster, but if you look at the profiles, that statistic is actually calculated in a “post per day” average, and even on my final day, I was never averaging more than others. I never passed Starr herself. Many posts were responses to the trolling which the inept administrators and moderators allowed to take place.

Several times new posters have signed up and the phora has accused them of being me. I then had to go and disprove the claim, putting in substantial effort to do this. “Johnny Cockroach” is a good example, in which the phora accused the poster of being me and produced a “train wreck” (in the words of Helios Panoptes) when I expressed substantial anger over the accusation on stumble inn. Another example is that Osmium14 and I used to fight in the phora shoutbox, yet amazingly Osmium later returned to the phora after I was banned and ridiculously people speculated that he was me. Is it not cowardly that the phora bans people, and then starts rumors about them when they can only refute those rumors elsewhere? Several newer phora members have taken a stance against me to prove their loyalty, and they don’t even know me. Is this not proof that the phora spends all day talking about me in their shoutbox? Is this not a just cause for writing this post, to essentially reverse this libel for good!

Are the Jews a nation?

Monday, April 25th, 2011

The question of whether Jews are a nation comes up in Stalin’s writing.

Stalin states that in order to be a nation, a few criteria have to be observed.
-common language
-common geography
-economic cohesion
-common psychology. Things like religion and ethnicity may influence psychology but they do not always divide nations into two. Christian Americans and Buddhist Americans are both Americans. Black Americans and White Americans are both Americans.

Stalin argues that if any of these are missing, then the community is not a nation. Stalin argues then argues that Jews are not a nation and it seems like a logical argument.

Therefore “the Jews” are not a nation.

But Jews can form a nation within a nation if their religion causes them to reject the psychology of the nation they live in. Or in the case of Zionism, Jews can make their own nation.

States, Nations and Classes

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

A state has a class nature. A state is tied to a mode of production. When Communist revolutions occur, most often the state is replaced with a new state. This difference between a proletarian and bourgeois state was discussed in the previous article.

A nation however does not have a class nature. Stalin actually defined a nation very well. Stalin also pointed out that nations became relevant during the demise of feudalism and rise of capitalism. Stalin, however, seemed to be struck by the impression that nations came into existence because of the mode of production, whereas I argue that nations always existed and just happened to realize it. Yes, nations were marked out with the demise of feudalism and rise of capitalism, but this was just a matter of consciousness. The logical partitions of humanity already exited and then these logical partitions just became aware of themselves. Of course perfection does not exist, but this is the general rule.

Capitalism has many problems, but one good thing that happened as a result of capitalism was that nations were realized that were relatively logical in their arrangements. This is the difference between the development towards larger communities, which turned feudal societies into nations in the past and the globalization that is occurring today. The threat of high technology did not exist to push globalization to the point of assembling humanity in a way that it should not be assembled.

In crude terms, a Japanese nation makes sense. Canada-Mexico-US as a nation does not make sense. How thankful we should be that high technology did not exist at this crucial point of history, as to pervert and distort the coming to fruition of national identities! But now this high technology exists and now capitalist seek to assemble humanity in an illogical way.

Marxism and “the state”

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

One turn off regarding Marxism for me has always been the misunderstood notion that “the state will wither away” in the words of Engels. However after reading more, I do not think it is as ridiculous as what one might think at first glance. It is only under specific utopian conditions that the state can wither away.

Below are some good links:

http://www.economictheories.org/2009/05/full-communism-ultimate-goal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx’s_theory_of_the_state
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/lenin-staterev.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism

Lenin distinguishes between the bourgeois state and the proliterian state which replaces it via revolution. Marx thought that the idea of capitalism dissolving peacefully was unlikely, and Lenin thought that this was totally impossible. The idea is that when the capitalist mode of production is replaced, then the state which is based on that mode of production should also be replaced. It is this secondary proliterian state that may wither away in a hypothetical setting, but as the links show, that was not a firm part of Marx or Lenin’s theory.

A key point here is that Lenin admits to the utopian nature of Communism. The argument is that socialism can be achieved by aggravating class antagonisms with the help of professional revolutionaries and philosophers, but that Communism is more of an ideal. As I posted earlier, Marx thought that socialism would occur naturally, but Lenin figured out that the working class must be guided. But even Marx himself knew that Communism, as opposed to Socialism, was a bit of a utopia. Marx may have been a scientific Socialist, but he was not a scientific Communist. He was a utopian Communist.

This revolutionized proliterian state will have legislation and constitutional material that orients to a new economic system and way of life. Take the American ideals: “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness.” Are those ideals not closely tied to free enterprise? Obviously the ideals of a socialist state would be centered around the rule of the proletariat, not human rights.

As far as my opinion goes, being a bit of an authoritarian and perhaps even a revisionist (I do not “follow” but study), I frankly do not see a stateless society as an ideal.

On Social Conservatism

Sunday, April 17th, 2011

One of the ideas of conservatism is that the world should be seen as it actually is, not as one would like it to be. This is a positive aspect of conservatism. The negative aspect of conservatism is the opposition to big government, but there are positive aspects in terms of coming to terms with reality. I think social conservatism has some merits, but economic conservatism has little merit. Keynes and Marx make sense. Even Mussolini makes sense. Adam Smith however does not make sense. “Invisible hand” can be stuck right up my _$$.

But skepticism is a great idea.

You may want to believe that Sunni Iraqis and Shia Iranians seek to collaborate in class solidarity against US imperialism, but without education, they will not.

You may want to believe that race does not exist, but it does.

You may want to believe that the various Caucasian ethnic enclaves in USA (the Irish, Italians, Poles, Russian Jews, etc.) are going to assimilate to the point of no longer existing as major groups in particular regions of the US. You may want to believe that, but it isn’t true. They are here to stay, and they will not melt even if some individuals do melt. You may want to blame this on a Jewish conspiracy, but then you are just an idiot.

You may want to believe in a united Europe, but nationalists will never forget their homeland. A Ukrainian and a German may collaborate in pan-nationalism, but a Ukrainian and German will not simply identify as “white.”

You may have wanted to stop coastal feuding in hip-hop. Rappers still got killed over it.

You may want to believe that Islam is theological socialism, but it remains theological feudalism.

If you take away the idea of “free markets,” then conservatism is not bad as an attitude. Stalin was more conservative than Trotsky. He set goals with clear plans to achieve those goals. Of the three major dictators of his time (Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin), Stalin was probably the most conservative in terms of being a realist and calculator. A conservative attitude means that one does not count chickens before they hatch and one plans to achieve things in logical steps, but as a progressive who is interested in bettering society, one must still act in some way. This is where conservatism can be a vice.

Finally, another area where conservatism falls hard is religion. You would think that skeptical people would be atheists, but no.

A Best Case Scenario for Israel/Palestine’s future

Saturday, April 16th, 2011

We do not live in a perfect world, but here is what I would consider a best case scenario for Israel from the perspective of my own worldview.

-The current state is replaced. Revolution is primarily lead by Jewish workers, but is aided in a smaller way by Arab workers. Professional revolutionaries and philosophers play a role. As a group, the former ruling class does not.
-Judaism remains the most common religion but the state replacing Israel becomes officially secular. There is no more state religion. This state adopts a more restrictive immigration policy, but still admits any Jew who is an asylum seeker.
-Class consciousness and national liberation become an important part of state ideology.
-By severing its ties with liberal capitalism, the future state severs its ties with US imperialism.
-A percentage of Palestinians are assimilated into the state, but they can remain Muslim. A percentage of Muslims are admitted as asylum seekers wherever. A percentage form a separate state, which is also class conscious and has no state religion. NOT an Islamic theocracy. The two states ally against imperialism.

*note : Many “Pro-Soviet” people argue that the transfer of Jews from USSR to Israel is a betrayal of the Soviet State. But that Soviet State no longer exists, so I do not think that argument is relevant anymore.

Vulgar Marxism vs. Progressive Nationalism

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

“I am not a Marxist.” – Karl Marx

“There is no knowledge that is not power.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

A “vulgar Marxist” holds that man has no free will and economic forces just happen in succession. To a vulgar Marxist, ideas do not really change society. Ideas are just an illusion of free will. Scholars debate the extent to which Marx (and Engels) believed this. I am trying to settle the historical question myself, but I do not believe Marx was quite this rigid. It makes no difference in terms of my own viewpoints, but it is an interesting historical question.

I personally believe that economic forces are a reality, just like genetic forces, national forces, cultural forces, religious forces and ethnic forces. To an extent these forces are intertwined with each other. For instance Thomas Hobbes and John Locke argued that the social contract was created by man to create Governments, because the nature of wilderness caused life to be “brutish and short.” This means that man formed his Government in reaction to material conditions. However for every problem, there are multiple solutions, and even I believe Marx was too confident that society would move in a particular direction or that society would even address the problems. That being said, I do not believe Marx was as linear as he is portrayed both by ultra-Orthodox “Marxists” and by anti-Communists.

While the forces iterated in the above paragraph are relevant to my worldview, I believe that when man becomes more conscious of these forces, he or she actually increases in power and control and increases in ability to engineer society. This is a very pragmatic way of thinking, but also a way of thinking which argues that man subjects nature.  Yet I am arguing that if man is unaware of these forces, then man has less power.   Hitler was very opposed to this thinking, arguing instead that man is subject to laws of nature. In contrast to Hitler, Mussolini would agree with it arguing that the state (a literate political class) creates the society. Anton Lavey (a satanist thinker) would agree with this thinking as well.

Lenin seemed to reject vulgar Marxism as well. Lenin argued that the party must guide the working class. “Democratic centralism” is a rejection of vulgar Marxism. It contradicts the idea that revolution happens on its own.

Stalin as well rejected this viewpoint. He was quoted as saying “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” If only economics mattered, and ideology did not, then Stalin would not have made this statement.

So we can conclude that Stalin, Lenin and future Marxists revised vulgar Marxism. The question is did Marx and Engels believe it? I do not think so personally.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor