The basic problem with the Communist ideology is that it is defined in opposition to capitalism. Once the generation which had experienced Tsarism and had created the Revolution passed away, the younger generation had no terms of reference for 'capitalism' or 'the bourgeois class'. In fact, in a society without any substantial class conflict, the whole concept of class struggle seems nonsensical. The dreariness of the mandatory lessons in 'diamat' didn't help either.


Granted. In some respects, the 'Russification' policy of the Soviets resembled the 'Romanisation' policy of the Romans - send Russian colonists into the province, but respect the native culture. The Tsarist Russification policy was much more explicit and much more draconian.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

Class is ephemeral. It can be manipulated to cause a revolution, but once the old class structure disappears it has no real meaning. This is the fundamental problem of leftism. A right-wing government, on the other hand, has permanent factors to rely on. The simple outcome is that all leftist governments, no matter how revolutionary, become more conservative and nationalist as time goes on. Thus we saw the USSR promote Russian high culture, rehabilitate the Orthodox Church, celebrate Rodina, shift the allegiance of the armed forces from class struggle to Soviet patriotism, and promote its national interests at the expense of other socialist states in the late stage.

The challenge for modern leftist thinkers should be to reconcile class struggle with more permanent human factors, instead of treating them as mere social constructions or power relations. And also to do this without becoming NazBols.


The Soviet policy on the other hand involved compulsory schooling and very important exams, which in effect made its policy more effective than the Tsarist one. The Tsarist policy on the other hand was way cooler since it involved Cossacks.

Dave, what would you consider the best way to impart the conquering culture on a colony? If we do ever establish an American empire, we'll need to replace much of latin culture, atleast to the extent we did in Hawaii.

The best way is to dispossess the natives and replace them with colonists, which is how we got our country and what we did in Hawaii.

With regard to transforming a native people, adopting the conversion practices of Medieval Catholic missionaries seems like the best practice. Rather than condemning indigenous religions as cults, they said that these religions showed imperfect knowledge of God and that these people were actually proto-Christians. The missionaries then guided them into "proper" Christianity while preserving traditional customs (hence the Protestant attack on Catholicism as dressed up paganism). This was then reinforced with a carrot and stick approach in which conversion brought economic integration and security, and failure to conform after a certain point brought harsh punishments. Where power was overwhelming people were just threatened with death (Charlemagne converting the Saxons) or actually killed (Teutonic Knights and their northern "crusades").

Sure, economic collapse will come, but there's no reason why blacks and Hispanics will be the sole or principal casualties. The fault lies with whites too, and the democratic system itself. Much also depends on the circumstances which trigger collapse. I've long predicted the pro-Israel bunch will be responsible.

I'm white but not anglo. Sure, I'm at odds with the democratic, anti-Statist traditions of this country. They may have been suited to the past but by now they're obsolete.
As time went on, the Romans relied less on client kings. Times were different then; modern authoritarian systems are based on secular ideologies which the State promotes at the expense of other beliefs.

I have no disagreement with this, but bear in mind that multicultism is despised and can only be sustained through continuous growth (to bribe people), propaganda, and terror. All of these will disappear, which means the end of multicultism--thus, America remains a white nation. Naturally other dominoes will fall as well, including democracy dying a well-deserved death.


Well then what are you? My ethnic origin is Swedish.


Democracy is a perversion of our original ideals. Statism may be necessary now as because Benjamin Franklin noted, "Only a virtuous people are capable of liberty. As people become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." A strong people impose their virtuous culture on the state, which in turn shrinks in size because need not control society. This small state, however, can be very strong in what it pursues. We have a very large but very weak state. It is involved in nearly everything, but does almost everything poorly.


Secular ideologies are a thin gruel. They are not a substitute for tradition and faith, history and heroes, blood and soil.

Assuming collapse doesn't occur for some time yet, when nonwhites are even more numerous, I don't see how economics will change the racial/ethnic composition of the country. If the KKK took over, minorities might be deported en masse, but I can't see the racists taking over.



No wonder. I once had a neighbor named Gustav Carlson. I heard that back in '68, when Martin Luther King was killed, he went to a bar to celebrate, and came home drunk saying: "He's way up in N***** heaven." I'm Italian and Irish (not black or hispanic).



What do you expect of a democracy, where government has to cater to individuals? Government is large because the masses expect largesse but weak because they don't want to be dominated.



They were very powerful motivating forces in the communist and nazi heydays. Look at the things people wee prepared to do in pursuit of ideological agenda. Sure they failed but IMO they merely anticipate an ultimate secular ideology, based on FAR better knowledge and progress.

Nor does it make sense if you consider Nazi's are working with La Eme and Al-Qaeda to undermine America; if this nation collapses, Nazi's will be held as much accountable as spics and camel-jockeys.

Illegal aliens will almost certainly be deported, and the legal immigration system will be reformed. Pretty simple really, and doesn't require any racism at all.


Good on Gustav, but that doesn't reflect Swedes as a whole. And I figured you were a Papist.


That's pretty much exactly what I expect from a democracy. I don't see a strong state as a matter of domination, although it can incorporate that, but as the state efficiently executing its functions.


Fascism and Nazism made highly explicit appeals to the subjects I mentioned, and communism ceased to be any kind of motivating factor once socialism was established, leading the USSR to become more conservative and nationalistic. Back to square one, Starman.


Maybe we can get rid of all of the above?

Except for the hot chicks... There's some hot latina and arab chick. I wouldn't mind fucking bin Laden's neice.

Not necessarily, if they support a new nondemocratic regime. Even if they are, it won't change the greater future proportion of nonwhites, at least not much.

Btw, IMO people who want to come here so much they'll do so illegally, and are willing to work at menial jobs shunned by Americans who'd prefer welfare, are far less deserving of deportation than AIPAC and ZOA members, for whom a foreign country is number 1 and the US is expendable--a mere cow to milk.



Me?? I'm as atheistic as they come.

You'd sell out Americans to support any regime? Odds are la eme will strike to establish Atzlan, which would break apart this county; you must sorely be mistaken if you believe Americans would give up the southwest.



Perhaps worth more economically, but the unemployment numbers are of people actively seeking jobs, which means that 6 out of 10 percent unemployment is caused by illegals and our unemployment would receed to <4% overnight if we got rid of them, not to mention our cultural integrity, less crime, etc.

I'd be dead against any attempt to wrench away the southwest. Any immigrants who want to do that are as bad or worse than the zionist lobby in that they consider some foreign cause more important than the US. Illegals with such views should be thrown out or killed. But I don't think they'll really amount to anything. Various past immigrants also considered a foreign cause paramount, yet they eventually identified more with the US--except the zionist bunch.
It's highly likely that any new nondemocratic regime will need al the suport it can get. Assuming many hispanic immigrants, illegal or otherwise, don't relate much to the zionist lobby and would support a revolution against it, they'll be an asset.
Immigrants may cost jobs but they also help hold inflation down. I once remember someone say: "If they can find a wetback that will pull that stuff out of the ground for 10 cents an hour, good for them. It'll mean lower prices at the supermarket."

Historically speaking, Fascism was an anti-Nazi ideology.

When one says that the Nazis were fascist, one is using a generic term, spread into use first by Lenin and the Communists, and later on by the Allies, especially Americans.

Fascism was an ideology (mostly of the practical, non-intellectual kind) that sprung up in Italy and Austria. Both nations thought Hitler's plans were mad and detestable, and both planned to oppose him. Two major things happened which changed this policy. 1. Hitler organized a Nazi coup in Fascist Austria, which scared the living lights out of Mussolini, and 2. Fascist Italy was not allowed to extend its African colonies by the main colonizing superpowers of the time. So Mussolini is at a point where he's threatened by both the Nazis and the Allies, but perceives 1. more threat from the Nazis, and 2. more liberty to his national policies if he joined the Nazis. So he did.

OP, you should read Mussolini: A New Life by Nicholas Farrell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss

While Dolfuss could be seen as fascist in a few respects, he always seemed to be as simply a reactionary desiring to return Austria to its Catholic, pre-war state, rather than a new, radical, fascist one. In any case, he was hardly a friend of Mussolini, due to concerns over Trieste and Tyrol, and claims over Dalmatia. While the historical antagonism between Austria and Italy was certainly reduced, to call the two states friends in the 1930's, particularly by which time Mussolini had already surrendered himself to Nazism, is incorrect.

The reason Mussolini turned to Hitler, I feel, is similar to the reasons Stalin did - the liberal states in the West rejected their radical programs and attempts to change the capitalist system, forcing them to band together.

Your second point concerning Africa, I think, is invalid, since the League of Nations offered no resistance to the expansion of the Italian Empire in Africa, which reached its peak at this time.

Ok, I'll have to get back to you on the invasion of Ethiopia.

If that wasn't a major contributing factor, apart from fear, then it was sheer madness for Mussolini to turn to Hitler. Many Western leaders at this time had become disillusioned with the liberal democratic system and saw in Mussolini's Italy a possible new model arising. Most of the Allied leaders expressed some sort of admiration for Mussolini and his system. Further, Mussolini, from the beginning found himself ideologically opposed to National Socialism - true, there were some common grounds, like authoritarianism, state socialism, the rejection of liberal individualism, etc... but the main ideological elements of National Socialism were racial purity and antisemitism, and neither of these were to be found in Fascism. When forced, Fascist intellectuals (Julius Evola for example) produced a framework for a racial policy, but their definition of "race" was spiritual and cultural. The Fascists had legions made of Arabs and Negroes in their African colonies who were on equal standing with their Italian legions. They also had several Jewish leaders and members within the Fascist party, not to mention several Zionist admirers. Full-blown racial laws and round-ups of Jews and Jewish business came to be in Italy only after the Salo "coup".

I fully recognize this as such, but do fear you are overestimated Mussolini's personal aversion to Nazi policies. Like most at the time, I doubt he particularly cared what Hitler was doing. I havn't read anything to the contrary, and would need evidence that Mussolini saw Hitler as his enemy. In his autobiographies, he writes nothing to that effect. If anything, Mussolini was overeager to please his northern ally.

Furthermore, while the West certainly did admire Mussolini, and Churchill and Roosevelt in particular tried to emulate his policies to combat their own economic depressions, they refused to offer him military and political support that Hitler could offer - which is why he ended up turning towards his ideological cousin rather than away from him.

Claiming that Nazism is not a form of Fascism is, I feel, an aspect of self-denial. Hitler was an atrocious character, and Nazism a disgusting ideology, but it most certainly is a form of fascism, based on racial, rather than national, pride and while it is right to condemn it, it is foolish to simply ignore its existence.

Ultimately racial pride and national pride cannot be separated, as ethnicity is a vital component of the nation. What made Hitler's ideology horrid and insane was ultimately the belief that his own race was superior and for this reason all inferior races needed to be purged.

While it is true that ethnicity and nation are intertwined very often, many nations are the result of two or more racial and cultural entities merging into one, and as such, race alone is not a determiner of national identity. The American nation, for example, comprises both blacks and whites, while many South American national identities are the result of a merge of two or more racial identities.

The allowance must also be made for the adoption of exceptional individuals into the nation, even if they are of another ethnicity.

This is true.

Racial pride is still appropriate for European nations however, as they are exclusively white nations. Even in America, whites and blacks self-segregate, and racial tensions ran high throughout most of its history. The only region in the world that has been able to truly transcend racial differences is Latin America.


Only if there is a shortage of the skills said individuals possess, or if they are from nations highly culturally compatible to one's own. Skilled immigrants from nations different from one's own tend to keep to their own kind and turn into market-dominant minorities, which then the locals resent.