No to Nato - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talking about and organise marches, demonstrations, writing to your local Member of Parliament etc.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#14445076
KlassWar wrote:NATO has been the army of world counterrevolution since the Fifties,

Indeed, they have a proven track record of fucking people up, so I can't think of anything better to throw at Russia.

KlassWar wrote:its collapse benefits all the working peoples of the world.

Except those in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

KlassWar wrote:The European working class needs the Western security-military-intelligence system to collapse so that socialist revolutions can take place.

And why on earth would anyone want Marxists to carry out a socialist revolution in Europe? Can you all be trusted not to fuck up everything again?

KlassWar wrote:Euro-American bourgeois hegenomy is the guarantee of counterrevolution in Europe, its complete collapse is needed in order for the bourgeois states in Europe to be overthrown and destroyed. If securing that collapse benefits Russia and thoroughly fucks over the Asian bourgeoisie, what's the problem?

The problem is that none of that benefits me or my class interests, nor does it benefit my ethnic interests. And I view my interests as more important than yours.

KlassWar wrote:Wrong. They're the security services of the British bourgeoisie, the class enemy of the British peoples.

Apparently this class enemy is less of an enemy than anything external to it.

KlassWar wrote:Best US president? FDR, hands down. Unlike almost every other US president, he wasn't a complete disaster.

I'm still going with George H. W. Bush. Why? Because:

  • Helping reunification of Germany.
  • Technology transfers to East Asian states.
  • The "New Order" which was actually just a devolution of power away from the US and into various client states, one step toward to dismantling the American 'empire'.
  • Helping Gorbachev to destroy the Soviet Union, because Gorbachev was an idiot.
  • Promising not to expand NATO and then drawing up a plan to massively expand NATO and executing that plan right in everyone's face without even giving a fuck.
  • Taking the time to literally laugh at the memory of John F. Kennedy's wounded head, at Gerald Ford's funeral on live television, no less. Gangster.
  • Operation Gladio in overdrive.
  • Not afraid to run the "Willy Horton" campaign commercial.
  • Member of badass secret society at Yale University.
  • Referring to 'Reaganomics' as 'voodoo'.

That is probably the best that the Americans have ever had on offer. That level of epicness will probably never be repeated by them again, it was like a one-off fluke.
User avatar
By KlassWar
#14445541
You've always been hostile to the interests of the European working masses, but it's nice to get you to say it outright.

Why should regular Europeans do as you say, if you're arguing overtly against their class interests?
User avatar
By redcarpet
#14445545
Rei Murasame wrote:[*]Not afraid to run the "Willy Horton" campaign commercial.


Could you elaborate on this more? like, are you saying you support the death penalty?
User avatar
By Cromwell
#14446623
Rei Murasame wrote:I'm still going with George H. W. Bush. Why? Because:

  • Taking the time to literally laugh at the memory of John F. Kennedy's wounded head, at Gerald Ford's funeral on live television, no less. Gangster.

That is probably the best that the Americans have ever had on offer. That level of epicness will probably never be repeated by them again, it was like a one-off fluke.


I'd have thought you'd have preferred John Kennedy. You know, sometimes I really don't understand where you're coming from at all.

Kennedy stood firm against: the Israelis, the anti-Castro Cubans and Wall Street.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#14446630
KlassWar wrote:You've always been hostile to the interests of the European working masses, but it's nice to get you to say it outright.

Why should regular Europeans do as you say, if you're arguing overtly against their class interests?

Because no one else has got a better plan. What's the alternative?

redcarpet wrote:Could you elaborate on this more? like, are you saying you support the death penalty?

Yes.

Cromwell wrote:I'd have thought you'd have preferred John Kennedy. You know, sometimes I really don't understand where you're coming from at all.

Kennedy stood firm against: the [1]Israelis, [2]the anti-Castro Cubans and [3]Wall Street.

Absolutely none of that happened. Where do people get these Kennedy mythologies from? I am not even joking, none of those things which you have just mentioned, actually happened in the way that you have described. I just don't understand what anyone sees in Kennedy.

To address those three points:

  • 1. Kennedy was not able to prevent the Israelis from continuing to operate the Dimona facility.
  • 2. Kennedy was the one who supported the Anti-Castro Cubans in the first place and authorised the CIA to launch the operation, and then when it went badly he sold out his own people and allowed all 1000 mercenaries to get captured because Kennedy was scared of what Moscow's reaction would be if he invaded Cuba to back up the mercenaries. That is bad and weak on top of bad.
  • 3. What?

Basically Kennedy was an American president, he wasn't anything like what the centre-left mythologises him as. There has never been a US President that did the things that they allege that Kennedy did, or stood for the things that they allege Kennedy stood for.
User avatar
By Cromwell
#14446638
Rei Murasame wrote:Absolutely none of that happened. Where do people get these Kennedy mythologies from? I am not even joking, none of those things which you have just mentioned, actually happened in the way that you have described. I just don't understand what anyone sees in Kennedy.


John Hughes-Wilson wrote:Although Israel had tried to keep the Dimona nuclear plant a secret, the CIA was well aware of the clandestine nuclear programme and Israel's 'secret' nuclear plans were an open book to Jack Kennedy from the day he took over as president. It signalled the start what was to become one of the most poisonous relationships between two supposedly friendly heads of state ever recorded. The truth was that, by 1963, JFK and the founding father of Israel heartily detested each other. The starting point was that Israel wanted a bomb and Kennedy wanted to stop them from getting one. Ben-Gurion lied to both his own countrymen and to JFK. The ageing Zionist claimed to the Israeli parliament that the Dimona plant was a scientific research facility 'investigating the problems of fauna in arid regions.

...

In an increasingly bitter exchange of letters, Kennedy and Ben- Gurion began what was virtually an exchange of hostilities. Over the next two years, the letters became blunter and less diplomatic. Even to this day, much of that correspondence remains locked away and marked 'classified'. What is available from the published record is the unswerving hostility of the Kennedy administration's foreign policy towards a nuclear-armed Israel.

...

Israel and its friends had effectively declared the President of the United States as the equivalent of a din rodef or 'betrayer of Jewry'. One way or another, Jack Kennedy was now in mortal danger.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#14446640
He was not able to stop it from happening. In the grand scheme of things, what George H. W. Bush actually accomplished for the world (and not just for America), is more significant than all the things that Kennedy's fans wish that Kennedy had accomplished before he was cut down.
User avatar
By jessupjonesjnr87
#14446645
NATO is the biggest threat the nations of this planet have ever known. It is a collective of some of the worlds most powerful armies under the complete control of unknown faceless and very disturbed men. They are responsible for most if not all conflicts that have taken place since 9/11 and many before that. They have used tools like facebook and the media to scare people into handing over to them total control of our nations resources and sovereignty.
People need to realise that America were not liberators of Europe and Asia, they were conquerors that have kept a strangle hold over their captured lands ever since creating it's NATO war machine from the remnants of Europe's armed forces.
Image
User avatar
By KlassWar
#14446649
jessupjonesjnr87 wrote:People need to realise that America were not liberators of Europe and Asia, they were conquerors that have kept a strangle hold over their captured lands ever since creating it's NATO war machine from the remnants of Europe's armed forces.]


Of course they weren't! They only got in Europe so the Soviets wouldn't get to liberate Germany and France.

Rei Murasame wrote:Because no one else has got a better plan. What's the alternative?


Aligning with Russia in order to destroy our ruling classes without mercy: The Russians are likely to be cool with it as long as NATO gets shredded in the process and they get to reoccupy all former Soviet Republics.
Last edited by KlassWar on 02 Aug 2014 00:16, edited 1 time in total.
By mikema63
#14446650
Aligning with Russia in order to destroy our ruling classes to the last man, woman and child


How on earth is that supposed to work?
User avatar
By KlassWar
#14446653
Unlike the Atlanticist powers, Russia can't really get away with anti-communist crusades abroad: Russia was a Socialist country for over 80 years until 15 years ago, a whole lot of Russians would probably resist it by force of arms... Generations of russians grew up seeing Potemkin.

The far left is poised to win the elections in Greece and Spain outright, and with any luck the revolutionary wave will spread to Portugal and the Balkans. And unfortunately it looks like the far right is going to take over a few European countries too (France, Hungary, maybe Denmark). That's bad news for us lefties but worse news for the EU: If all these countries start quitting the EU and NATO, the Atlanticist world order will probably unravel. And if European liberalism turns to putschism to maintain order we'll probably see an European Civil War... In which it'd be in Russia's interest to let the far left topple the existing regimes (getting rid of NATO is their biggest wet dream).

And once it comes to that stage it's a matter of killing the right wingers and class enemies before they kill us. The odds for the spanish far left come Machete Season look pretty good: The far left is capable of mobilizing several million people to take to the streets and fight, and nobody else can.
Last edited by KlassWar on 01 Aug 2014 21:35, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#14446655
Well, if that's your alternative, you are just making it easy for the NATO side then. We can just point out that the alternative is to lie down and be walked on by Russian Slavs and communists, and when people get scared enough about that, Napoleon's shoulderboards will metaphorically appear on the shoulders of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and that will be the end for the pro-Russian insurgents.

People like Victor Orban - those who were pro-NATO liberals in a past political existence - need to realise that if they could shoot Kennedy in the head, they can shoot Orban too.
The Popular Vote...

Why should anyone here give a shit about what you[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

You, and other Trump ass-kissers always have an e[…]

apparently KSA and USA are both paper tigers their[…]

Part 2 of 3 Which is also a sign of how far t[…]