← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mithras
Thread ID: 10784 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2003-10-27
2003-10-27 20:31 | User Profile
[B]Marxism Exposed![/B] Death, Misery & Destruction By: A. Q. R.
Marxism has for itself the ultimate goal of the elimination of the White Race. Now anyone who is opposed to this evil scheme, who resists the genocide and complete abolishment of his own kind and heritage, is called by the Marxist minions such meaningless words as ââ¬Åracist,ââ¬Â ââ¬Åhatemonger,ââ¬Â and the like. He is hindered by legislation which furthers the ultimate goal of Marxism, thus removing the legal right for a man to defend himself and his land.
In order to eradicate the White Race, Marxism seeks to abolish the natural order of mankind: the nation, democracy, religion, race, tradition, culture, family, property, etc. But what Marxism really stands for is what it does not mention. The White Race is the founding and leading entity of modern civilization. Whites are the most advanced species that have ever walked the earth. We therefore own a majority of the wealth of which we ourselves built up. Marxism, which was created by Zionist Jews and later adopted by many non-whites, seeks to destroy our civilization, run our race into the ground, and steal all of our wealth and infrastructure. Marxists even want to steal our women!
This plot is put into play by many stupid schemes, including global free trade, world banks, foreign aid, world war, multiculturalism, miscegenation, feminism, open borders, mass immigration, and other leftwing agendas.
How could this be a humane philosophy I ask?
I would like to hear from the Marxist the reasoning on why an entire race of peoples who have brought civilization to the point that it is today and without whom the world would no longer function as a relatively peaceful and advanced society, should be exterminated. I think for a White to think these things he would have to have been influenced by a powerful form of black magic called "Marxism" and that he should seek therapyââ¬âposthasteââ¬âin order to correct these self-hating delusions.
Do you really know what you are supporting, White man? Would you be happy in a Communist country such as Russia under Stalin or present-day China? Don't believe for a second that ââ¬ÅMarxism looks good on paper" or that "the real aim of Communism is for the people to rule" because those are blatant lies. Communism is a scam. Its only goal is the destruction of nations.
Just to show you how powerful this black magic is and just how stupid people are for following it, is the simple fact of a Marxist tax system, or progressive taxes. In the last fifty years, taxes have gone from 2% of earnings to over 40%. Why would a peoples need a government to steal their money and give them programs that aren't even worth one-tenth of what could be accomplished if only the government kept their greedy hands off of people's earnings and let them pay their own way? There wouldn't be poverty or a workersââ¬â¢ wage lower than living wage if the government just kept their hands off of people's paychecks. This alone proves Marxism to be a scam and exposes the entire leftwing as pro-Marxist.
Now, don't think for a minute that a government made up of another race other than White who had in their possession this amount of tax dollars would not commit the same brutal crimes if not much worse than any of the White governments in history. Do not think it for a minute!
Therefore, all of the worldââ¬â¢s problems today are due to the Marxist agenda.
[I]On Our Way to Extinction[/I]
The White Race is a minority among the world population. Amid the races of the world: African, Asian, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, the Aryan comprises a measly fraction of the overall percentage, certainly nowhere near one-fifth. Considering also the declining birthrates of Whites, and more importantly, the shortage of women of childbearing age, as weighed against the explosive increase of birthrates of the remaining four racial groups, experts have accurately projected the White Race to become extinct in the near future. Buchananââ¬â¢s Death of the West is one such source compiling many valuable statistics and resources that details this epidemic.
We must therefore declare that, to no other race in existence, mass immigration and the multiracial society is a threat, if not plainly suicidal, as it is to the Aryan. And yet, no other race on this planet, other than the Aryan, actively promotes and puts into practice these self-destructive schemes.
When we trace this destruction to its source we find the doctrine of Marxism. But it does not matter who or what is responsible; all that matters are these fourteen words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.
Upon recognizing this fact it is clear only that we must terminate any and all plans, legislation, or present orders which further our destruction. Not only this, but we must also promote and put into effect all that which furthers the existence of our peoples.
That which denies our existence is clear: multiracialism, miscegenation, crime, war, globalism, excessive abortion, feminism, high taxes (which force women into the workplace rather than the bearing and raising of children), and so on and so forth.
That which promotes our existence can only be therefore that which stamps out completely the Marxist doctrine from our societies.
M E D I A T R I X Copyright, December 2003
2003-10-28 03:12 | User Profile
I must point out that Marxism comes in many forms. The nice lady across the street may be a Marxist [who plans to tie up a paleo in her basement and cover him with BBQ sauce to eat later]. Heh.
If you believe that all humans are "equal," if you believe that all cultures are "equal," you are indeed a Marxist, whether you belong to the Communist Party or not.
AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS "EQUAL," FRIENDS!
2003-10-28 03:51 | User Profile
Marxism is a form of insanity so trying to reason with people who want to kill you is a waste of time. If whites aren't willing to fight for their survival - and I mean fight in every way they have to - then they deserve to die off.
2003-11-21 18:56 | User Profile
I'm a Marxist, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about marxism, if we can do so in a calm civilized way. I assure you that "exterminating" any race is not the goal of Marxism. So ask what you would like.
2003-11-21 19:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Merman]I'm a Marxist, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about marxism, if we can do so in a calm civilized way. I assure you that "exterminating" any race is not the goal of Marxism. So ask what you would like.[/QUOTE]
Marxists aren't welcome here. We have nothing to ask about Marxism, and Marxists themselves are not and cannot ever be civilized. Marxism is the tool of the jew to exterminate the White race.
[B]Death to Marxism![/B]
:hitler:
2003-11-21 19:35 | User Profile
My guess would be that you do, in fact, have many things to ask about Marxism, since it is your belief that Jews are responsible for marxism (I suppose Lenin, Trotsky, and Kautsky were all paid by jews?), when in fact race plays absolutely no role in Marxism. It is a movement of the entire world, including white people. I am white.
2003-11-21 19:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Merman] I am white.[/QUOTE]
No. You are a self-hating, arrogant, pompous, illiterate, lying, mentally retarded terrorist.
2003-11-21 19:54 | User Profile
And I'm the uncivilized one? I can clearly see that respectable conversation can not be had with what seems to be a board full of fascists, so I'll let you carry on about how other races are trying to kill us. Have fun. Idiot.
2003-11-21 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Merman]My guess would be that you do, in fact, have many things to ask about Marxism, since it is your belief that Jews are responsible for marxism (I suppose Lenin, Trotsky, and Kautsky were all paid by jews?), when in fact race plays absolutely no role in Marxism. It is a movement of the entire world, including white people. I am white.[/QUote]
Paid by Jews? How many of those WERE Jews?
2003-11-21 20:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Merman]My guess would be that you do, in fact, have many things to ask about Marxism, since it is your belief that Jews are responsible for marxism (I suppose Lenin, Trotsky, and Kautsky were all paid by jews?), when in fact race plays absolutely no role in Marxism. It is a movement of the entire world, including white people. I am white.[/QUOTE]
Hello Merman. I believe you are the first self-admitted Marxist to join up here, so I at least applaud your forthrightness and courage. As you can see, you are swimming in hostile waters.
With regards to your statement above, others here are certainly much more well-versed in the subject than I, but all of the men you list, including Marx himself, were jewish.
What is your view of culture and its importance to community or societal cohesion?
2003-11-22 03:51 | User Profile
They were born jewish, but they and just about any marxist you're ever likely to meet, were atheist. The murderous side of communism didn't come until the Stalin era, which wasn't communism at all, but capitalist under the name of communism. You won't find any marxists who condone the actions of the Soviet capitalists. It is very important to see the difference between the two.
I'd love to read some of your material.
2003-11-22 03:58 | User Profile
What is your view of culture and its importance to community or societal cohesion?
Culture is great, as long as it is malleable.
Perhaps you believe the Bolshevik "revolution" was a spontaneous popular uprising.
It wasn't spontaneous, no. It was popular, at least until the civil war broke out.
2003-11-22 04:04 | User Profile
If most of you here are in fact capitalists, I have a few questions for you. Again, let's keep this respectable, as I've tried to do to you.
How will capitalism put an end to poverty, pauperism, and class antagonism?
How will capitalism put an end to the love of work?
How will capitalism make democracy that can't be influenced by who has the most money?
Thank you.
2003-11-22 04:06 | User Profile
Marxism = doo-doo. Garbage. A swindle. A 3-dollar bill invented by Jews as an attack on White culture.
Picture dog crap plated in chrome. It's still dog crap, but it looks nice.
Sorry, Marxism is bogus egalitarianism invented by Jews.
2003-11-22 04:10 | User Profile
Explain to me how Marxism will destroy white culture...
Explain to me why you clinge on to the color of your skin so much...
The concept of race isn't doomed by any political ideology, but by the transportation revolution.
2003-11-22 04:14 | User Profile
Marxism is based on Jewish communal living, i.e. the kahal. It is a direct attack on successful White, Western culture. It is revenge by remote control by Karl Marx, a dead Jew.
If you think that humans are "equal" [as Marxism teaches], you are living in a fantasy land. Whites are The Master Race. Get used to it.
2003-11-22 04:24 | User Profile
Is that so?
Are all whites equal?
Are the whites who get paid $7.50 in non-union factories equal to business owners who inherited their wealth?
Seriously, I want answers. Assuming you're not a billionare, why do you feel connected with those who are, when you yourself have not gotten the same advantages they have?
2003-11-22 04:32 | User Profile
So-called "class-baiting" is part of Marxism. It pits one group against another group. Jews invented the idea of pitting one group against another [i.e. leftism, feminism, etc.]. Such pitting weakens America's social fabric, allowing Jews to worm their way in unopposed.
Look at all the class-baiting movements, and you will see that Jews invented them. [Although, I am anti-globalist/anti-big-capitalist [1], so that movement may be a good thing....]
[1] Jews pioneered big global corporations/conglomerates/banking
2003-11-22 04:37 | User Profile
So-called "class-baiting" is part of Marxism. It pits one group against another group.
You're pitting races against each other. Is that different somehow?
You didn't quite answer my question though, are poor whites equal to rich whites?
2003-11-22 04:43 | User Profile
Marxism was a lie from the get go. It was about Jewish supremacy. And murder of one's class enemies was always part of the plan. The Jews who founded the Soviet Union murdered more people in the first few years they were in business than the Tsars had during their entire reign. The murders merely intensified as enemies of the state were identified. The fact that Marxist-communism was govt. sponsored genocide is found in the pattern seen in every country where it took hold. The Red Chinese murdered 65 million, the Cambodians murdered about 20% of their population, etc. Terrorism, starvation, mass murder, mass indoctrination - those are the legacies of Marxism. As far as I'm concerned, you should all be hunted down and murdered.
2003-11-22 04:51 | User Profile
Out of those, only Russia was communist, and only up until Lenin died. Lenin never sponsored genocide.
The people with views similiar to yours, the Nazis, murdered 20k million.
2003-11-22 04:58 | User Profile
No one has answered my basic questions about capitalism. You say it all comes down to race, and that white people are the superior race (what is this based on anyways? Science or luck of the draw?), but you won't answer if poor whites are equal to rich whites. They don't seem to be to me. Rich whites pay poor whites as little as possible, just as they do everyone else.
You guys win. At what, I'm not sure. I'm not coming to this site anymore, as the blatant racism gets to me too much. Have fun kids.
2003-11-22 05:14 | User Profile
Marxism-communism same thing.
According to Rummel's book, Lethal Politics, probably 62 million people were murdered by the Communist Party of the Soveit Union.
"Overall, in the Red Terror, the Bread War, the new concentration and labor camps, and famine, Lenin and party probably murdered 3.2 million people."
"How long will you keep killing people?" asked Lady Astor of Stalin in 1931. Replied Stalin, "the process would continue as long as was necessary" to establish a communist society."
Total dead in Soviet Union - 20 (low figure) to 62 million (mid range figure). High figure is 127 million.
Rummel is wrong about one thing. He says that Hitler killed 4.4 million Jews. There were only 3.5 million Jews in all of German held territory. Somewhere between a few hundred thousand to 1.2 million Jews died from various causes. There were no gas chambers in the camps. Most people died of typhus, cholera, starvation towards the end of the war, disappeared into the Soviet Union, or suffered from the same bombings as anyone else. The Germans kept meticulous records of the comings and goings of people into the camps, what they died of and who died. Less than a half million people - total - died in all the camps. The rest is bunk. A shakedown and hoax perpetrated by Jews to shake down Germany, fund the establishment of Israel, and guilt the West into giving them Palestine. The people who brought Hitler to power to drive the Jews out of Europe were Jewish bankers. They were also the ones who formented the overthrow of the Tsar so they could loot his bank account. They used the money to buy shares in the Federal Reserve.
Stop reading comic books and read what really happened in the last century.
2003-11-22 06:01 | User Profile
Hello Merman
Productivity in the US is currently at 7% so their doing something right even if Bush is spending the money faster than they can print it.
From my own European Nationalist perspective Marxism is little more than a allusion a mere trick of the light. I do however have some respect for certain Socialist principles such as labor rights, free health care and education. However Socialism is viewed by increasing numbers of people in Europe as a form of slow starvation by stealth taxes and unregulated immigration.
Seemingly 7 out of 10 children in British and French schools these day are either Black or Asia. Why should are peoples taxes have to pay for their education. Why are 9 out of 10 junior civil servants black in England and France? What exactly have these retrogressive savages ever done for us except steal from us whilst living off are backs?
Instead of wasting are societies resources on worthless parasites we should be engage in a policy of population expansion and looking after are own kind.
Just look at Africa 36% of South Africa has AIDS and 5-6 million people have been killed in ethic violence their in the past five years. The EU and US are feeding 40% of the population of the African continent and what exactly are the African Americans doing to support their own kind?
Lazying around, dealing Crack and trying to have sex with are women thats what!
Gregz
"He who mistrusts most should be trusted least." - Theognis
2003-11-22 13:49 | User Profile
If most of you here are in fact capitalists, I have a few questions for you. Again, let's keep this respectable, as I've tried to do to you.
How will capitalism put an end to poverty, pauperism, and class antagonism?
How will capitalism put an end to the love of work?
How will capitalism make democracy that can't be influenced by who has the most money?
Thank you.
As with poverty, we have the highest standard of living in recorded history in the West and other parts of the world. The fact that the world's population exploded to 6 billion and life expectancy doubled in the 20th century are vivid proof of that. As with poverty, it is a question of definition. Where does poverty start? It depends on what standard of living you expect. I would say that poverty in its traditional meaning is barely existent in Western Europe. Class antagonism: Will always exist like all other kinds of antagonisms (religious, regional, national, gender etc.). Man is not perfect. People usually define themselves by despising another group. You can only minimize class antagonism to such a degree that it does not become a destabilizing force in society. The conflict between labour and capital, employer and employee, the haves and the have nots will always persist. The tolerance threshold concerning the gap between rich and poor depends on the cultural context. It seems to be pretty high in India due to the caste system. America with its calvinist work ethic is highly tolerant of massive income gaps. Europe due to its partriarchaic feudal past is more egalitarian. Too me class antagonism can only be lowered by the emerge of a strong middle class that acts as a buffer. A system without a middle class becomes instable and might easily turn into tyranny.
Why should love of work be overcome? Work is the source of all wealth and necessary for human dignity. As we say "Arbeit macht den Menschen" Work is what makes you human.
The rich will always have more political influence than the poor. This is human nature. You can only limit their political influence by initiating a campaign finance reform, crack down on soft money, close down all corporate think tanks and create strong powerful trade unions that check corporate power. The lack of trade unions in the US gives corporate America a free pass. That is a problem as I see it.
2003-11-22 15:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Merman] The murderous side of communism didn't come until the Stalin era, which wasn't communism at all, but capitalist under the name of communism. [/QUOTE]
[I]Not quite. The Red Terror under the Bolsheviks (i.e. prior to Stalin, under Lenin) is very well documented. Here is one page. I put in bold the relevant comments to this discussion.[/I]
Lenin and the First Communist Revolutions, VII
"[B]War Communism", the Red Terror, and Lenin's Famine[/B] Almost immediately after they seized power, Lenin's Bolsheviks inaugurated an endless stream of economic decrees and policies. [B]These proved to be disastrous, resulting in a horrific famine, depopulation of the cities, and an enormous decline in living standards.[/B] So unpopular were these policies that after they were finally altered in mid 1921, Lenin tried to re-write their history. It was at this point that the Bolsheviks economic policies from 1918-1921 were dubbed "War Communism," and declared to have been a temporary expedient forced upon Lenin's government by wartime conditions. In fact, so-called "War Communism" began before serious fighting erupted, and continued after the Whites had been decisively defeated. It was not a wartime expedient; it was the policy that Lenin wanted to pursue in war or peace. As Pipes explains, "War Communism as a whole was not a 'temporary measure' but an ambitious and as it turned out premature attempt to introduce full-blown communism." (The Russian Revolution) As noted earlier, Lenin's ideas on desirable economic policy were vague at best. So upon taking power, he looked around the world for inspiration; what caught his eye was the "War Socialism" of the German Kaiser. As Paul Johnson notes:
So one might say that the man who really inspired Soviet economic planning was Ludendorff. His "war socialism" certainly did not shrink from barbarism. It employed slave-labourers. In January 1918 Ludendorff broke a strike of 400,000 Berlin workers by drafting tens of thousands of them to the front in "labor battalions." Many of his methods were later to be revived and intensified by the Nazis. It would be difficult to think of a more evil model for a workers' state. Yet these were precisely the features of German "war socialism" Lenin most valued. (Modern Times)
The primary features of War Communism were:
Uncontrolled inflationary printing press finance, ultimately leading to hyperinflation and nationwide reversion to barter Near universal nationalization of manufacturing; widespread nationalization of retailing Stringent price controls upon and forced requisitioning of agricultural products; state monopoly on grain purchases Forced labor for civilians as well as the military The package fit together quite logically. The tax system had broken down, so the Bolsheviks just turned on the Czar's printing pressing to fund their activities. At the same time, the prices of most goods were fixed, so as the money supply increased without limit, the legal prices became less and less realistic. Rationing cards replaced rubles as the means of acquiring goods. But if money no longer bought goods, then what was the point of working? Hence, the imposition of compulsory labor.
The Bolsheviks' forced labor policies gave new life to the concept of irony. The men who had proclaimed themselves liberators of the workers and denounced the exploitation of labor suddenly discovered the joys of serfdom. [B]Trotsky stood at the theoretical vanguard of the literal proponents of slavery: "It is said that compulsory labor is unproductive. This means that the whole socialist economy is doomed to be scrapped, because there is no other way of attaining socialism except through the command allocation of the entire labor force by the economic center, the allocation of that force in accord with the needs of a nationwide economic plan." Initially the forced labor laws were applied to the (ex-)middle classes, but their application rapidly broadened to include not only workers and peasants but even minors. [/B] As Pipes explains:
By late 1918, it became common practice for the Bolshevik authorities to call up workers and specialists for state service exactly as they drafted recruits into the Red Army. The practice was for the government to announce that workers and technical specialists in a specified branch of the economy were "mobilized for military service" and subject to court- martial: those leaving jobs to which they had been assigned were treated as deserters... Efforts to organize industrial labor on the military model could not have worked well in view of the plethora of decrees on this subject, setting up ever new punishments for "labor deserters," ranging from publication of their names to confinement in concentration camps. (The Russian Revolution) One would expect that the mere suggestion of compulsory labor, let alone its actual imposition, would have branded Lenin and Trotsky as demonic traitors to anyone who purported to care about the plight of workers. Ominously, it did not; Party intellectuals proclaimed the wonders of the new system. "Compulsory labour under capitalism, wrote Bukharin, was quite the reverse of compulsory labour under the dictatorship of the proletariat: the first was 'the enslavement of the working class,' the second the 'self- organization of the working class'." (Paul Johnson, Modern Times) At this point, the reluctance of Communists from Marx to Lenin to precisely explain their proposed policies takes on a new meaning. As the Russian emigre Ayn Rand put it: "Intellectuals? You might have to worry about any other breed of men, but not about the modern intellectuals: they'll swallow anything." (Atlas Shrugged)
[B]As the economy deteriorated, the Cheka waxed ever fatter[/B]. After an July 1918 revolt by SRs, the Cheka turned its guns on fellow socialists, executing 350 captured SR rebels. One month later, the SR Fanya Kaplan nearly succeeded in assassinating Lenin. [B]Her noble effort unfortunately gave the Cheka the excuse to initiate the Red Terror, i.e., mass executions of people based not upon their actions but their class origins and beliefs.[/B] As Landauer explains, "The first conspicuous act of government-ordered reprisals on a large scale without regard for individual guilt came after the assassination of Michael Uritzky and the attempt on Lenin's life on August 30. These events were not in themselves apt to justify measures against the bourgeoisie, for the two assassins, Kenigiesser and Fania Kaplan, were both members of the Social Revolutionary party and therefore not "bourgeois." But the minds of the Soviet leaders were dominated by the theory that Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were tools of the "class enemy," and it appeared logical to the Bolsheviks to strike at the group which allegedly had inspired the assassination. Five hundred hostages were shot in reprisal in Petrograd alone by order of Zinoviev, the head of the local soviet. On September 5, the people's commissars officially legalized the red terror..." (European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements)
[B]From then on the Cheka's executions never ceased. The exact number murdered is usually estimated at between 100,000 and 500,000, but the chaotic wartime conditions make the accounting especially difficult. [/B] [B]But execution was not the Cheka's only tool; it also pioneered the development of the modern slave labor (or "concentration") camp.[/B] [B]Inmates were generally frankly treated as government-owned slaves, and used for the most demanding sorts of work - such as digging arctic canals - while receiving pitifully small rations.[/B] As Pipes explains, [B]"Soviet concentration camps, as instituted in 1919, were meant to be a place of confinement for all kinds of undesirables, whether sentenced by courts or by administrative organs. Liable to confinement in them were not only individuals but also 'categories of individuals' - that is, entire classes: [/B] Dzerzhinskii at one point proposed that special concentration camps be erected for the 'bourgeoisie.' Living in forced isolation, the inmates formed a pool of slave labor on which Soviet administrative and economic institutions could draw at no cost." (The Russian Revolution) [B]The number of people in these camps according to Pipes was about 50,000 prisoners in 1920 and 70,000 in 1923; many of these did not survive the inhuman conditions[/B].
The mildest manifestation of the Red Terror was the official policy excluding "class enemies" entirely from the wartime rationing system; i.e., legally, it was often impossible for disfavored groups to even purchase food. As Landauer simply puts it: "As a consequence, the average "bourgeois" had only the choice between death and illegal activities." (European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements) Bourgeoisie with valued technical training could usually get around these rules, but otherwise their plight - and the plight of their families - was bleak indeed, though naturally far better than the inmates of the slave labor camps.
[B]It is now and only now, when in the regions afflicted by the famine there is cannibalism and the roads are littered with hundreds if not thousands of corpses, that we can (and therefore must) pursue the acquisition of [church] valuables with the most ferocious and merciless energy, stopping at nothing in suppressing all resistance. [/B]
V.I. Lenin
But the greatest crime committed by Lenin's regime was the civil war the Soviet government waged against the peasantry, and the famine this war precipitated. The alliance of "the workers and peasants" was an ingenious slogan given the fact that almost everyone in Russia was a peasant. But it was a slogan that Lenin and his followers never had the slightest intention of following. They despised the peasants as ignorant "petty bourgeoisie" who stood in the way of collectivized agriculture. With one hand Lenin's regime legally recognized the peasants' land seizures, but with the other hand it demanded food at ever more unreasonable terms (in the end, unrestrained printing press finance plus price controls effectively required peasants to give their food away for free). "The law provided that all the grain that the producer had left over after satisfying his personal needs and providing for seed belonged to the state and had to be sold to its agencies at fixed prices." (Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution) The consequences were a perfect illustration of the principles of "bourgeois" economics: with ever stricter price controls, peasants opted not to sell their grain to the cities. This made life ever harder for urban workers, who fled back to the country in huge numbers - [B]often city populations declined by over 50%.[/B] Rather than repeal its price controls, the Bolshevik regime scapegoated black marketeers and speculators, unleashing the Cheka upon them with orders to administer summary executions. This merely drove up black market prices.
[B]So Lenin's government advanced to the next stage: sending the Cheka and the Red Army to seize grain directly from the peasant.[/B] This was ideologically justified by dubbing peasants who resisted grain as wealthy "kulaks," though rich and poor alike found themselves staring down the muzzles of the Cheka's guns. Once again, the resort to ever greater brutality did not bring the desired results. Minimal food was collected, and the peasants went into open revolt. Lenin, who in every other matter seemed to be the master of the temporary compromise, could not control his hatred of the resisting peasants. He ordered kulaks to be deprived of not only surplus grain, but even seed grain, while in his speeches he exhorted: "Merciless war against the kulaks! Death to them." Even as the Red Army battled Kolchak and Denikin, they waged a less visible civil war with the peasants. By most estimates several hundred thousand peasants were killed as a result of this so-called "Bread War" - as usual, the Red Army and the Cheka executed not only captured rebels, but often families, friends, or entire villages associated, however vaguely, with counter-revolution.
The peasants had numbers on their side, and many soldiers were reluctant to fight them, but the government's superior organization ultimately gave them victory over the peasants. But the victory was hollow, for after the fruit of their labor had been seized, farmers generally decided there was no point in growing a surplus. Moreover, since seed grain was often taken, many peasants were unable to grow surplus crops even if they wished. When the perverse incentives of price controls and expropriation were mixed with a drought, the result was one of the great disasters of the century: the Russian famine of 1921. [B]Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation.[/B] The White forces shared little of the blame: as Pipes notes, the Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of 1920, but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. Moreover, the areas under White control had actually built up a food surplus. The horrific famine of 1921 was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the Ukraine and other White territories, the Reds shipped the Whites' grain captured grain north to Petrograd, Moscow, and other cities with less hunger but more political clout. Low estimates on the deaths from this famine are about 3 million; high estimates go up to 10 million - which would probably have been much higher if not for foreign relief efforts which Lenin had the good sense to permit. For perspective, the last severe famine in Russia hit in 1891-92, and cost about 400,000 lives.
Needless to say, Lenin had no plans to respect the freedom of religion. But until the famine, most of the persecution of religion appears to have been taken on local initiative. Most religious property was ordered expropriated, although in fact clergymen usually continued to occupy and use their church buildings. Parents lost the right to give their children religious education - although again, during the Civil War years, this does not seem to have been enforced. (Interestingly, while the state subsidies to the church greatly declined, the Orthodox Church under Lenin essentially remained a bureau of the state). Serious government persecution of the Orthodox Church began with the famine, which gave Lenin the chance to bring the Orthodox Church into line. He demanded that the Church hand over valuable relics to help famine victims (or so he said). The Church resisted, resulting in around 8000 executions of persons resisting the confiscation of relics. Similar but milder persecution began against Jews, Catholics, and to a lesser extent, Muslims. (These religions, however, had less to lose than the Orthodox Church, because they had no subsidies for the Bolsheviks to cut off).
Can Lenin and his associates be held morally culpable for the deaths of these millions of famine victims? If the famine were a natural catastrophe, this would be unreasonable. But the famine was largely man-made, the result of draconian price controls and requisitioning. Most of the evidence is that Lenin and his associates knew the probable results of their agricultural policies, but were willing to take the risk: according to Pipes, Lenin repeatedly said that he would sooner the whole nation die of hunger than allow free trade in grain. In short, Lenin and his comrades knew with substantial certainty that their policies would cause widespread death from starvation. [B]Under any sensible definition of murder, this makes Lenin the murderer of millions. [/B]
The Russian Civil War and the Russo-Polish War
Worldwide Communist Revolutions: Hungary, Germany, Mongolia...
2003-11-22 17:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Merman]Out of those, only Russia was communist, and only up until Lenin died. Lenin never sponsored genocide.
The people with views similiar to yours, the Nazis, murdered 20k million.[/QUOTE]
Communists murdered more than the Nazis by a factor of probably 50. In fact, marxist communists are the greatest mass murderers in the history of the world. Hands down. Period. In all of its manifestations, whether Russian, Polish, South American, Chinese, Cambodian, sub-Saharan African, marxism has resulted in mass murder of large numbers of innocent people. The numbers, all added up, are so many millions, probably at least 40 million, that it becomes incomprehensible to our minds. The one thing all marxism has in common, the one red thread connecting all the differing nationalities involved, is murder.
Merman, you are a young man no doubt, and have had little exposure to the hidden history of marxism, hidden because the powers that be supported marxism during its murderous reign of terror against humanity and tradition. Read the Black Book of Communism as a primer for this history that exists in the memory hole of modern history.
2003-11-22 22:28 | User Profile
I am always amazed that, so many times when I read about Marxism, the Jewish origins of it are completely missing. Even on paleo websites.
But, it is not too late for Marxists to change. I believe that, with good guidance, Marxists can be reformed, with the proper knowledge and info.
2003-11-22 22:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]I am always amazed that, so many times when I read about Marxism, the Jewish origins of it are completely missing. Even on paleo websites. [/QUOTE]
And this refers to what? If you mean the original article, it is not a concern as to the origins which is supposed to be common knowledge anyway. Why list the obvious? Besides, now we have Asian and African and White Communists who are just as deadly to our kin.
[QUOTE]But, it is not too late for Marxists to change. I believe that, with good guidance, Marxists can be reformed, with the proper knowledge and info[/QUOTE]
Reformed or not, they are still mentally retarded.