Talking bollocks thread

American companies invested tens of billions of dollars in Cuba, built the roads in Cuba, built the railroads, built the refineries, and Castro believed he could nationalize all of that, forcing them to eat a massive loss, and still buy what he needed from the USA.

Castro openly went to the US for assistance to free the people of Cuba from the foreign colonialist occupiers... most of which was actually Mob related and therefore hardly legitimate anyway.

The US rejected them.

The Soviets were happy to step into that gap and provide assistance... with no other offers Cuba went from nationalist to communist. You could say exactly the same in Vietnam... it was never about communism... it was everything about the Vietnamese first kicking out the French and then the Americans and getting control of their own country... if the Soviets had supported the French and the US had gone in and supported the north then America almost certainly would have come out on the winning side... however long it took... in fact it would have been much quicker as the Soviets would not have been able to support a ground force in south vietnam for very long... if at all.

Until they return the assets or pay reparations, the embargo should remain.

How about the US apologises for terrorist actions in Cuba like burning sugar cane fields and supporting an invasion at the Bay of pigs?

If you have a 5,000 acre farm for growing wheat but you have no mill to process the wheat so you contract with me and I end up buying 30 acres of your land and setting up a mill at my own expense, and you immediately turn around and seize the mill once I am done building it, you have to understand we are going to have a major problem.

Except when you go into a foreign country and bribe the corrupt government and buy land for 20c an acre and then pay locals 1c a day to work your land so you can sell sugar for a dollar a kilo back home and keep all the profits... it was worse than coffee growers. If the locals didn't like working in the cane fields they could go to the big casinos and bars and sell drinks to rich fat americans enjoying their beaches and their women.

Yeah... I wonder why they wanted that to change... it is not like it was Castro on his own... it was the majority of the population that asked those rich guys to leave.

No but seriously, what is it about this forum that attracts so many closet racists?

People believe what they believe.

For one to be Russian one has to be Slavic, entirely Slavic/Rus.

Interesting... and to be American you would have to be a Native American? Or Mexican?

Of course it is possible to obtain a Russian passport and have a legal right to live in Russia and work in Russia without being of the Russian/Slavic ethnicity.

So what you are saying is that a Russian passport is a cover to pretend to be slavic?

A Turk born in Russia is no more Russian than a German born in Pakistan would be Pakistani.

So what you are saying is the US is a country populated by passport holding Europeans and Asians and Africans and the only real Americans are native americans, mexicans, and natives from central and south america... interesting.

magine that each woman would have 12 to 15 children over the next two decades...

If they decided to have 12 to 15 children each in 20 years and they all actually managed to do that I would not want to get in their way... they would be formidable women by any measure!

In summary, a mixed race person in Russia who is not White/Russia should be afforded the rights and protections provided by the law, assuming he is lawfully residing in Russia, but he should not be accepted as a Russian nor declared to be a Russian because his blood is not Russian.

Interesting, because the same sort of ideas here in New Zealand suggest the same thing...


In summary, a person in New Zealand who is not Maori should be afforded the rights and protections provided by the law, assuming he is lawfully residing in New Zealand, but he should not be accepted as a New Zealander nor declared to be a New Zealander because his blood is not Maori.

The thing is that Russia is made up of hundreds if not thousands of little ethnic groups and they are all already considered Russian... Russia is a Federation remember. Adding a few new groups will not radically change that... as long as the focus is moving forward and getting along... rather than arguing and looking at differences.

What use would a tool box be if you could only carry one type of hammer and no other tool?

Russian forum moderators are mature adults who can handle people with different beliefs.

He is actually right there...

The standard way to handle things on any forum operated by Anglo/American moderators is to denounce differing views as "racist" and then ban the forum member.

Which is quick and easy, but doesn't really deal with the issues.

It only makes me wonder why our Indian members stay quiet Smile IMHO, Indians are cool, and I get along with them pretty good, not like with their "neighbours" Wink I had chance work with are very talented and would never put myself higher then them. One of the calmest people I've met.

I don't want to speak for them as I have no authority to do so, but I suspect it is a battle they have and will fight all their lives when around white people and they know it is just like arguing politics or religion. A few words are never going to change such fundamentally held beliefs and to be honest anyone who has a chat online in a forum and suddenly realises their beliefs were wrong obviously didn't spend much time thinking about them properly in the first place.

Art of war... I have never read it but I suspect one of the rules is don't look for battles you can't win.

I see massive non-white immigration into centuries old White nations as a form of demographic colonization and I detest it along with other forms of colonialism and imperialism.

Yet by your own beliefs human migration is normal... without white migration north america would be largely empty. Why would it change now.

You admit your government let almost 200,000 Indian nationals into your country because your country needed their expertise.

Which makes you?

Which makes him TR-1.

It is amusing that your opinion of him is more based on his ethnicity than what he has said, but that is the problem with such views... you miss out on interacting with some really neat people because you can't get over the fact they might not need to spend time in the sun each summer to get a tan.

Personally ethnicity or race is totally unimportant to me... an interesting person is an interesting person... and an Ass is an Ass... whether they are white, or blue, or pink.

Of course I don't judge people for their views either so I don't hate BTRFan or Nick or anyone here even if I don't agree with them.

We can disagree on all sorts of things... this is the internet, not the UN... we don't have to sort out the worlds problems here.

Just keep it civil and treat everyone with respect and there will be no problems.

TR1 wrote:

Not personal at all, blood really means very little to me.
Half Avar, Half Dargin- now is there any Slav mixed in there over the past several centuries? Who the hell knows. Not that I know off, but it never really interested me.

I know some people pay a handsome sum of money to trace bloodlines, and it can get pricy if it involves actual genetic testing and such of family trees.

Interesting. It seems You don't care about your ethnic groups at all.

For me it means something maybe because it's a some kind identity crisis that I'm experiencing. Not like I want to be special, cause anyway it's more important where I grew up. It's not like I suddenly become other person.

Rest of my family don't twist their heads about it and even don't care about being old believers as most of us are atheists.

I have dark characteristics, I'm naturally tanned, very dark hair, I can grow difficult beard in 3 days. Mongolic features runs in mothers side family and that what bothers me. Surname is Russian.

I would probalby pay some money but with these tests there is always room for mistake, for example that I doubt that anyone could trace neighbour from top floor that came for sugar when that persons father was in komandirovka.

TR1 wrote:

BTRfan wrote:

It seems there are dozens of political parties in Russia and each of them has at least something of a following.

In the USA there are probably only five political parties which have any appreciable number of voters/followers and of course there are only TWO that have power in Washington DC.

Well by that standard in Russia there is only ONE party that has power in Moscow- party of Putin.
Biggest voting block other than them is Commies, and half their votes are just people not wanting to vote for United Russia. That and Geezers.

Other than that we have Zhirinovsky the clown, and a bunch of small disorganized liberal and socialist parties that get little of the vote.

It ain't a pretty picture by any standard.

A Jew running an ultra-nationalist party for Slavs/Russians is somewhat comical.


Are there any parties in Russia that value freedom, small government, nationalism, Russia for Russians, yet friendship and trade with other nations?

BTRfan wrote:
Are there any parties in Russia that value freedom, small government, nationalism, Russia for Russians, yet friendship and trade with other nations?

Well by idea LDPR of Zhirnovski supposed to be that way. There is no other parties with same values in Duma. Check RPR-PARNAS but not sure about their nationalism. Not a fan of politics, especially Russian. It's one sided game.

Just bit of topic, My Russian became rusty and I thought that Russian word "CHLEN" only means "DICK". So I was reading about that party and was like WTF, is this a joke or Zhirnovski went totally insane and started to count dicks in his party. Apparently "Член" has more meanings. In this context it's member. Just don't google it the word for christ sake!

In English technically Dick is a contraction of a persons name (Richard).

It is also another name for Penis, as is Member, Schlong, one eyed monster, purple helmeted knight, etc etc... there are web pages with very extensive lists.

The problem with english is that it is different in different places... in the US a fanny is an ass or arse or backside. In Britain a fanny is female genitalia... so in the US you can fall on your fanny or get your fanny whipped or kissed or licked and this obviously has a very different meaning in the rest of the english speaking world...


Even in New Zealand a holiday house is called a batch up north and a crib in the south.

GarryB wrote:

Which makes him TR-1.

It is amusing that your opinion of him is more based on his ethnicity than what he has said, but that is the problem with such views... you miss out on interacting with some really neat people because you can't get over the fact they might not need to spend time in the sun each summer to get a tan.

Personally ethnicity or race is totally unimportant to me... an interesting person is an interesting person... and an Ass is an Ass... whether they are white, or blue, or pink.

Of course I don't judge people for their views either so I don't hate BTRFan or Nick or anyone here even if I don't agree with them.

We can disagree on all sorts of things... this is the internet, not the UN... we don't have to sort out the worlds problems here.

Just keep it civil and treat everyone with respect and there will be no problems.

Of course he's TR1 and it doesn't change if he is a Tatar or an Avar or whatever he might be... But I do like to know who I am talking with.

If somebody wanted to know, "are you a German American?" and I got evasive and replied, "why does it matter?" well it obviously mattered enough to them to ask, so they should get an answer.



Also, your comment about America and "natives."


Clovis Man was White, they found fossilized remains in the Pacific Northwest, 18,000 years old with red-hair. Asiatics/Indians do not have red hair.


Also, the United States of America is a nation, a country, it was founded by White settlers. Indians/Natives never had a nation and they didn't even have a concept of private land ownership.

GarryB wrote:

Russian forum moderators are mature adults who can handle people with different beliefs.

He is actually right there...

The standard way to handle things on any forum operated by Anglo/American moderators is to denounce differing views as "racist" and then ban the forum member.

Which is quick and easy, but doesn't really deal with the issues.

On an American forum I frequent I stated my opposition to the illegal drone war in Pakistan, the murder of people with drones in Yemen, and I also questioned Israel's actions in Lebanon and Syria and suggested that Israel is causing instability in the Middle East.

Immediately several American Jews called me an anti-Semite, one compared me to Hitler, several said I should be banned, and they also suggested I go over to Stormfront.



That's about the height of discussion/debate one can achieve in an American forum.


Israel actually employs tens of thousands of college students, army reservists, and pensioners to go onto forums and advance pro-Israeli zionist propaganda.

BTRfan wrote:
Clovis Man was White, they found fossilized remains in the Pacific Northwest, 18,000 years old with red-hair. Asiatics/Indians do not have red hair.

Can you explain this "White" thing first? So a person with red hair is "White".

Also, the United States of America is a nation, a country, it was founded by White settlers. Indians/Natives never had a nation and they didn't even have a concept of private land ownership.

So your theory goes like this. There was a person with red hair 18000 years ago in USA. And since Native Americans had no paperwork to show you, USA was there for the taking.

Then why are you complaining if a Foreigner comes with a paperwork and settles under US law and buys property legally following Land Ownership concepts of United States of America.

Please make sense.

Corrosion wrote:

BTRfan wrote:
Clovis Man was White, they found fossilized remains in the Pacific Northwest, 18,000 years old with red-hair. Asiatics/Indians do not have red hair.

Can you explain this "White" thing first? So a person with red hair is "White".

Also, the United States of America is a nation, a country, it was founded by White settlers. Indians/Natives never had a nation and they didn't even have a concept of private land ownership.

So your theory goes like this. There was a person with red hair 18000 years ago in USA. And since Native Americans had no paperwork to show you, USA was there for the taking.

Then why are you complaining if a Foreigner comes with a paperwork and settles under US law and buys property legally following Land Ownership concepts of United States of America.

Please make sense.

It was a clash of cultures and we won, I am not sorry that we triumphed.


The first settlers traded large amounts of trade goods [forget all of that nonsense about "ten dollars in beads" for Manhattan], they traded blankets, metal tools, alcohol, even some firearms, in exchange for land.


White settlers believed that they were obtaining exclusive ownership and rights to exclusive use of the land that they had just traded away valuable goods for. However, the Indians, having no concept of ownership, let alone exclusive rights, believed that people belong to the land and the land belongs to all, so the Indians continued to use the land as though no exchange had ever taken place. They also didn't believe the settlers/Whites had exclusive rights over the livestock they brought with them from England.

As you can see, that would be a source for conflict... People [Whites] who have just paid for what they believe is going to be exclusive ownership/rights to specific land, while the people [Indians] who accepted the trade goods for the land, don't believe in the concept of exclusive ownership and don't believe the settlers have exclusive rights to anything.


It was natural that fighting would result, I am not sorry we won. We paid for the land and had to fight to receive what we paid for.

It was similar with the Whites and aboriginies in Australia. The Aboriginies never had a concept of exclusive ownership of land.


For a people to have a concept of exclusive ownership of land they need to have progressed beyond the level of hunter-gatherers and they need to be engaged in more than nomadic hunting of game herds. They need to have villages, towns, even cities, along with permanent/semi-permanent agriculture. It is not surprising that the Africans, American Indians, and Australian aboriginies never had a concept of exclusive ownership of land because they never progressed beyond nomadic hunting-gathering.


I don't hold their lack of progress, their inferiority, against them, we had a concept of private property ownership, we paid [in some cases handsomely] for the land we wanted, they didn't understand that by giving them stuff we were expecting them to leave us alone on what was to become our own land, and we had to fight them. It was a clash of two ideologies and the White man won. I'm not sorry for being on the winning side.

Corrosion wrote:

BTRfan wrote:
Clovis Man was White, they found fossilized remains in the Pacific Northwest, 18,000 years old with red-hair. Asiatics/Indians do not have red hair.

Can you explain this "White" thing first? So a person with red hair is "White".

Also, the United States of America is a nation, a country, it was founded by White settlers. Indians/Natives never had a nation and they didn't even have a concept of private land ownership.

So your theory goes like this. There was a person with red hair 18000 years ago in USA. And since Native Americans had no paperwork to show you, USA was there for the taking.

Then why are you complaining if a Foreigner comes with a paperwork and settles under US law and buys property legally following Land Ownership concepts of United States of America.

Please make sense.

This is essentially my view on citizenship, what it means to be a member of the wider volk community of the volk state.


Mein Kampf page 302-303


During the last century it was lamentable for those who had to witness it, to notice how in these circles I have just mentioned the word ‘Germanization’ was frivolously played with, though the practice was often well intended. I well remember how in the days of my youth this very term used to give rise to notions which were false to an incredible degree. Even in Pan-German circles one heard the opinion expressed that the Austrian Germans might very well succeed in Germanizing the Austrian Slavs, if only the Government would be ready to co-operate. Those people did not understand that a policy of Germanization can be carried out only as regards human beings.

What they mostly meant by Germanization was a process of forcing other people to speak the German language. But it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think that a Nigger or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learned the German language and is willing to speak German for the future, and even to cast his vote for a German political party. Our bourgeois nationalists could never clearly see that such a process of Germanization is in reality de-Germanization; for even if all the outstanding and visible differences between the various peoples could be bridged over and finally wiped out by the use of a common language, that would produce a process of bastardization which in this case would not signify Germanization but the annihilation of the German element.

In the course of history it has happened only too often that a conquering race succeeded by external force in compelling the people whom they subjected to speak the tongue of the conqueror and that after a thousand years their language was spoken by another people and that thus the conqueror finally turned out to be the conquered.

What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is not language but blood. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak of Germanization only if that process could change the blood of the people who would be subjected to it, which is obviously impossible. A change would be possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of the superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture would be that precisely those qualities would be destroyed which had enabled the conquering race to achieve victory over an inferior people.

It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a superior race intermixes with an inferior one, even though the resultant mongrel race should excel a thousandfold in speaking the language of the race that once had been superior. For a certain time there will be a conflict between the different mentalities, and it may be that a nation which is in a state of progressive degeneration will at the last moment rally its cultural creative power and once again produce striking examples of that power.

But these results are due only to the activity of elements that have remained over from the superior race or hybrids of the first crossing in whom the superior blood has remained dominant and seeks to assert itself. But this will never happen with the final descendants of such hybrids. These are always in a state of cultural retrogression.





This also sums up my view on the state, the relation of the people to the state, and the reason for the very existence of the state-



MK page 84-85


After the great war of 1870-71 the House of Habsburg set to work with all its determination to exterminate the dangerous German element - about whose inner feelings and attitude there could be no doubt - slowly but deliberately. I use the word exterminate, because that alone expresses what must have been the final result of the Slavophile policy. Then it was that the fire of rebellion blazed up among the people whose extermination had been decreed. That fire was such as had never been witnessed in modern German history.
For the first time nationalists and patriots were transformed into rebels.

Not rebels against the nation or the State as such but rebels against that form of government which they were convinced, would inevitably bring about the ruin of their own people. For the first time in modern history the traditional dynastic patriotism and national love of fatherland and people were in open conflict.

It was to the merit of the Pan-German movement in Austria during the closing decade of the last century that it pointed out clearly and unequivocally that a State is entitled to demand respect and protection for its authority only when such authority is administered in accordance with the interests of the nation, or at least not in a manner detrimental to those interests.

The authority of the State can never be an end in itself; for, if that were so, any kind of tyranny would be inviolable and sacred.

If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individual citizen.

The question of whether and when such a situation exists cannot be answered by theoretical dissertations but only by the exercise of force, and it is success that decides the issue.

Every government, even though it may be the worst possible and even though it may have betrayed the nation’s trust in thousands of ways, will claim that its duty is to uphold the authority of the State. Its adversaries, who are fighting for national self-preservation, must use the same weapons which the government uses if they are to prevail against such a rule and secure their own freedom and independence.

Therefore the conflict will be fought out with ‘legal’ means as long as the power which is to be overthrown uses them; but the insurgents will not hesitate to apply illegal means if the oppressor himself employs them.

Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State of Government but rather the conservation of the race.

If the race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminated the question of legality is only of secondary importance. The established power may in such a case employ only those means which are recognized as ‘legal’. yet the instinct of self-preservation on the part of the oppressed will always justify, to the highest degree, the employment of all possible resources.

Only on the recognition of this principle was it possible for those struggles to be carried through, of which history furnishes magnificent examples in abundance, against foreign bondage or oppression at home.
Human rights are above the rights of the State. But if a people be defeated in the struggle for its human rights this means that its weight has proved too light in the scale of Destiny to have the luck of being able to endure in this terrestrial world.

You.....just quoted Mein Kamf....dude......*facepalms HARD*

BTRfan wrote:
It was a clash of cultures and we won, I am not sorry that we triumphed.


The first settlers traded large amounts of trade goods [forget all of that nonsense about "ten dollars in beads" for Manhattan], they traded blankets, metal tools, alcohol, even some firearms, in exchange for land.


White settlers believed that they were obtaining exclusive ownership and rights to exclusive use of the land that they had just traded away valuable goods for. However, the Indians, having no concept of ownership, let alone exclusive rights, believed that people belong to the land and the land belongs to all, so the Indians continued to use the land as though no exchange had ever taken place. They also didn't believe the settlers/Whites had exclusive rights over the livestock they brought with them from England.

As you can see, that would be a source for conflict... People [Whites] who have just paid for what they believe is going to be exclusive ownership/rights to specific land, while the people [Indians] who accepted the trade goods for the land, don't believe in the concept of exclusive ownership and don't believe the settlers have exclusive rights to anything.


It was natural that fighting would result, I am not sorry we won. We paid for the land and had to fight to receive what we paid for.

It was similar with the Whites and aboriginies in Australia. The Aboriginies never had a concept of exclusive ownership of land.


For a people to have a concept of exclusive ownership of land they need to have progressed beyond the level of hunter-gatherers and they need to be engaged in more than nomadic hunting of game herds. They need to have villages, towns, even cities, along with permanent/semi-permanent agriculture. It is not surprising that the Africans, American Indians, and Australian aboriginies never had a concept of exclusive ownership of land because they never progressed beyond nomadic hunting-gathering.


I don't hold their lack of progress, their inferiority, against them, we had a concept of private property ownership, we paid [in some cases handsomely] for the land we wanted, they didn't understand that by giving them stuff we were expecting them to leave us alone on what was to become our own land, and we had to fight them. It was a clash of two ideologies and the White man won. I'm not sorry for being on the winning side.

So you agree America was not yours to start with. You went their illegally, not following the law of the land, one of which was that there was no property ownership. Well then the immigrants who go to America today follow American law of immigration. And your illegal immigrants are more or less equal to early settlers in America who used hook or crook or other tyrannic ways or war to go to America. What is the big deal then??

hope you do understand that in Russia and rest of Eastern europe Mein Kampf is banned material and rightly so. For example I feel insulted that it is being quoted here on Russian forums.

BTRfan wrote:Indeed 60% of all small hotels/motels are owned by Indians. They also own many of the gas stations and corner stores

It's second nature to these mongrel Indians and other such dark skinned individuals to take over by force what belongs to others . Yesterday the Mayor of Moscow said something very important :

http://en.ria.ru/society/20130530/181419043/Moscow-Does-Not-Welcome-Migrant-Workers---Mayor.html

Migrant workers from Central Asia should not be encouraged to remain in Russia .

People who speak Russian badly and who have a different culture are better off living in their own country. Therefore, we do not welcome their adaptation in Moscow .Moscow is a Russian city and it should remain that way. It's not Chinese, not Tajik and not Uzbek

Actually this is a feeling echoed by most native Russians as well . What the mayor said is not something new . Given the huge number of Indians/Blacks etc present in this forum most Russian forum members do not voice their opposition to them as Whites cannot be as abusive as these blacks / indians are .

It's only a matter of time before the US is taken over by dark skinned people just like Europe.

Interesting news, Nick. I can't say that I don't disagree with him, he is right about ghettos and about Russian language knowledge.
Russia should pursue Ukrainian, Belarus and probably ex-Ussr workers. There is big percentage of unemployed people there and it wouldn't be hard for them to assimilate too.

I can understand people who are against immigration too. I personally hate most of my countrymen I meet in UK because they give me bad name. Most of them are from country side red-necks that had to flee the country when EU destroyed our agriculture.
I know lithuanians and polish that live in abroad in Norway, Germany, Spain and UK for more than 5 years and don't have basic language skills. These people should be tourists not residents. There are even free language courses that You can get in any EU country because it's part of integration project, but hey lowly skilled factory worker can't be bothered. For example, immigration by profession is sound solution that could be used in all countries.

Corrosion wrote:

So you agree America was not yours to start with. You went their illegally, not following the law of the land, one of which was that there was no property ownership. Well then the immigrants who go to America today follow American law of immigration. And your illegal immigrants are more or less equal to early settlers in America who used hook or crook or other tyrannic ways or war to go to America. What is the big deal then??

I agree with none of that.


Mindless leftist drivel, textbook open borders rhetoric. "We're all immigrants" "the pilgrims were illegal immigrants" it is all marxist manure.


There was no "America" when we came here, not in the sense of an organized nation with civic institutions.

We came to a mostly empty continent with less than 1-2 million Indians in ALL of the entire North American CONTINENT. There was no national code of law, no permanent agriculture, no concept of private property rights, no laws pertaining to borders, no concept of borders. They were nomads who existed by following game herds and gathering what they needed when game was scarce.


Now that we have improved the land, that we already paid for centuries ago, and that we had to fight to secure, now that we have erected bridges, laid railway tracks, paved massive highways cutting across the nation, now that we have turned a formerly virgin wilderness into a true civilization, the Indians cry that they were stripped of land they "owned" [despite lacking a concept of ownership] and on top of it, the land suddenly takes on a mystic quality of being "sacred" since it seems the lands they conveniently become spiritual regarding worthless lands that their ancestors traded away 300 years ago, now that the land is worth billions.


If White people are ever to leave North America as the mestizo/mexican race demands, we should leave it as we found it. We should remove everything that is electronic or electrical and take it with us as we go, we should tear down all of the bridges, we should grind up all of the paved roads, we should knock down all brick, stone, masonry, steel, and wood structures, and we should leave America as it would have been in the 1300s-1400s.

It is rich to hear the mestizo/mexican race demand White people leave since none of them would even exist if Whites from Spain had not come here and mixed with Indians to bring about the creation of the Mestizo race.

Regular wrote:hope you do understand that in Russia and rest of Eastern europe Mein Kampf is banned material and rightly so. For example I feel insulted that it is being quoted here on Russian forums.

I was under the impression that Russia was one of the few nations in Europe that actually allowed citizens access to read Mein Kampf and decide its merit [or lack of merit] for themselves.


If you've read Mein Kampf you would know that Hitler wrote at length about how Germany and Russia were natural allies. His ideal alliance in the early 1900s would have been to ally with Russia to carry out the dismantling of Austria-Hungary, with Germany annexing the German portion of Austria, Russia taking the Eastern European lands of Austria-Hungary, Hungary possibly going independent, the Balkans being released to become independent, and I don't recall what he said about Czechoslovakia, either parts would go to Germany and parts would go to Russia, or it would become independent.

Hitler did not believe Germany should have gone to war against Russia for the sake of Austria's Balkans ambitions. He explicitly wrote, "the alliance should have been with Russia against Austria-Hungary."


Hitler thought fairly highly of the Russian Empire. The Bolshevik Revolution resulted in a marked shift of his view on Russia and the Russian people, he came to see them as insane mindless Bolshevik drones intent on pillage and slaughter, at least that is the impression I get.

NickM wrote:

BTRfan wrote:Indeed 60% of all small hotels/motels are owned by Indians. They also own many of the gas stations and corner stores

It's second nature to these mongrel Indians and other such dark skinned individuals to take over by force what belongs to others . Yesterday the Mayor of Moscow said something very important :

http://en.ria.ru/society/20130530/181419043/Moscow-Does-Not-Welcome-Migrant-Workers---Mayor.html

Migrant workers from Central Asia should not be encouraged to remain in Russia .

People who speak Russian badly and who have a different culture are better off living in their own country. Therefore, we do not welcome their adaptation in Moscow .Moscow is a Russian city and it should remain that way. It's not Chinese, not Tajik and not Uzbek

Actually this is a feeling echoed by most native Russians as well . What the mayor said is not something new . Given the huge number of Indians/Blacks etc present in this forum most Russian forum members do not voice their opposition to them as Whites cannot be as abusive as these blacks / indians are .

It's only a matter of time before the US is taken over by dark skinned people just like Europe.

Regular wrote:hope you do understand that in Russia and rest of Eastern europe Mein Kampf is banned material and rightly so. For example I feel insulted that it is being quoted here on Russian forums.

Should the Communist Manifesto be "rightly banned" because millions suffered and died under communism and the book calls for the violation of human rights and property rights of large segments of society?


If a book is "too dangerous to allow people read" what that really means is the book is a threat to the power of the ruling regime/state and the authorities do not want people to have access to a worldview that is diametrically opposed to the state approved ideology.


Censorship is the last resort of one who has lost the debate.

Millions never died under communism since first because there haven't been any communist nations(this is an oxymoron since communism seeks to abolish bordres and unite humanity) and second becausze all these numbers of "millions of killed" are false due to faulty mathematical model or simply overly bloating the death count in order to discourage communism or any left wing ideology.
In the soviet union the original estimate made by Robert Conquest of "40 million dead" is based on a faulty mathematical model of population growth and including the 27 million soviet deaths commited by the Nazi genocide. It would be illogical for many millions to die in the USSR all statistics show that population rapidly INCREASED throughout its history except during WW2. The other book claiming a large death toll of socialist governments is the "black book of communism"which claims a ridiculous 100 million deaths( 1/2 of the population of the USSR). The book had extremely unreliable sources mainly from Ukrainian Nazis and in 2001 the author even confessed that the book had death toll errors.


After the full documents were released after the collapse, historians like John Getty and Stephen Wheatcroft edited the number to about 2 million, with 1.057 million dying in the Gulags. The 20 million number comes from historian Robert Conquest in the '60s-'70s, and he based his numbers largely on Khrushchev's secret speech (which was full of lies as Grover Furr pointed out in his book "Khrushchev Lied"). The Gorbachev documents aren't very honest either, in fact the last 3 pages of the Katyn one seemed to be forgeries since they had a different type-face than the typewriter in Beria's room.



Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems. Deaths as a result of those systems cannot be attributed to failures in those systems, as the systems find acceptability relative to their social usefulness. The moral aspects of the systems only come into account when contradictions are present in the system, thus necessitating a dialectic for change.


As for human rights the USSR had for most part(especially during the 30s higher moral standards, more rights, personal freedoms and better living conditions for the population unlike in the westernt colonial empires like Britain and the US where eugenics and racism ran rampant, there was exploitation and oppression against the working class, massive accumulation of wealth into a very limited amount of individuals and not for the common good( like in all capitalist nations to this day), and very poor living conditions and lack of opportunity for the minorities and native colonial peoples. None of these things ever happened in any socialist nation.

Compared to the monarchial and corporate empires of the 20th century it also had a more democratic government even if it lacked the 2-party illusion of democracy.

The SU had over 70,000 Soviets across the country, and each Soviet had a number of politicians elected through direct democracy through factories elections and such. The Leningrad Soviet, for example, had over 20,000 elected officials. The Soviets also had structure, as there were local, regional, national, republic, and supreme Soviets. The system therefore worked as a chain, and the top directed the bottom, but the bottom created the top. The local Soviets were also given ownership of factories, schools, hospitals, homes, etc. The party also had such structure, as there were 130,000 party cells across the country. Those cells would elect an All-Union Party Congress that would meet twice a year. The Congress would thereupon elect the Central Committee, and the Central Committee elected the Politburo and General Secretary.

Leninist Democratic Centralism also makes Liberal Democracy more challenging, as the former is more democratic than the latter. Democracy should not simply be about giving the population a single vote every two years, rather it should represent the needs of the worker relative to their specific conditions. For this, we will need to create many councils to establish this type of rule, so as to have relativity in the concept of democratic rule in the regions. Soviet is the Russian word for Council, so when people say "Soviet Union" they mean "Council Union."

"freedom of speech and a multiparty system" The Soviets didn't lack in either. There were well over 9,000 newspapers across the country, and there were also 20,000 state employees who traveled across the nation to get peoples' personal opinions. Free speech is necessary in any Socialist state, as the converse is contradictory to the Marxist dialectic theory and thus Socialism itself.


The Soviets did allow the Church to accumulate wealth. However their difference from the Czarists was that the church could no longer receive subsidies from the government, rather a separation was made between church and state. The church was only allowed to accumulate wealth from donations and small scale agricultural works.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Millions never died under communism since first because there haven't been any communist nations(this is an oxymoron since communism seeks to abolish bordres and unite humanity) and second becausze all these numbers of "millions of killed" are false due to faulty mathematical model or simply overly bloating the death count in order to discourage communism or any left wing ideology.
In the soviet union the original estimate made by Robert Conquest of "40 million dead" is based on a faulty mathematical model of population growth and including the 27 million soviet deaths commited by the Nazi genocide. It would be illogical for many millions to die in the USSR all statistics show that population rapidly INCREASED throughout its history except during WW2. The other book claiming a large death toll of socialist governments is the "black book of communism"which claims a ridiculous 100 million deaths( 1/2 of the population of the USSR). The book had extremely unreliable sources mainly from Ukrainian Nazis and in 2001 the author even confessed that the book had death toll errors.

I guess there was no "great leap forward" in China. Even the Chinese government admits that tens of millions of peasants died.


Communist inevitably leads to purges, massacres, and gulags.

People who won't go along with the campaign of collectivization or who stand in the way of the revolution are not invited to walk away with their property in a cart nor are they left alone, they are purged.



You cannot have communism without mass repression perpetrated by the state against the masses.


To say that "very few people died because of communism" betrays either a massive ignorance of history or a political/personal agenda.

Communist states have been responsible for approximately 140 million murders against their own citizens since 1919.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

As for human rights the USSR had for most part(especially during the 30s higher moral standards, more rights, personal freedoms and better living conditions for the population unlike in the westernt colonial empires like Britain and the US where eugenics and racism ran rampant, there was exploitation and oppression against the working class, massive accumulation of wealth into a very limited amount of individuals and not for the common good( like in all capitalist nations to this day), and very poor living conditions and lack of opportunity for the minorities and native colonial peoples. None of these things ever happened in any socialist nation.

People vote with their feet.


A full 25% of the population of East Germany moved West before the wall was erected to seal them into that prison state.

If communism is wonderful then there would have been mass migration from West to East.


How many people risked their lives to break INTO East Germany? Hundreds died trying to flee East Germany.


If the Soviet Union had freedoms why was attempting to leave without authorization a crime, why did Jews have to protest to be allowed to move to Israel? Why were there over a hundred thousand border troops who were tasked with preventing emigration? Why did emigrants forfeit their property?


In 1960 in the USA you could pack your bags and move to Mexico or move to Brazil if you so desired.

In the 1960s in the Soviet Union if an engineer went to the Interior Ministry and declared, "I would like to move to America" or "Brazil" or any nation, they would have arrested him and sent him to a gulag. At the very least he would be sent home and kept under observation.

Millions of people left the East Bloc prior to the erection of physical barriers, including minefields.



When the East bloc citizens finally learned how the basic citizens in the West were living, their corrupt communist governments were brought down. When oppressed masses living under a worthless communist economic system see that people one country over actually have cars that work, can actually buy a car the day they walk onto a lot, and can actually rent an apartment on a day's notice, a decent apartment at that, not a pre-fab Kruschev/Stalin style bloc apartment that takes 5-10 years to get into, they will rise up.



If the communist system was objectively better, then millions of Westerners would have scrambled to get into DDR, Poland, USSR, etc. The human flow was one way, East to West.

People vote with their feet.


Communism is discredited and anybody who can seriously declare, "communist nations had better human rights, better living conditions, better consumer goods" is just a liar [or a brainwashed zombie] who doesn't need to be addressed further.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Millions never died under communism since first because there haven't been any communist nations(this is an oxymoron since communism seeks to abolish bordres and unite humanity) and second becausze all these numbers of "millions of killed" are false due to faulty mathematical model or simply overly bloating the death count in order to discourage communism or any left wing ideology.
In the soviet union the original estimate made by Robert Conquest of "40 million dead" is based on a faulty mathematical model of population growth and including the 27 million soviet deaths commited by the Nazi genocide. It would be illogical for many millions to die in the USSR all statistics show that population rapidly INCREASED throughout its history except during WW2. The other book claiming a large death toll of socialist governments is the "black book of communism"which claims a ridiculous 100 million deaths( 1/2 of the population of the USSR). The book had extremely unreliable sources mainly from Ukrainian Nazis and in 2001 the author even confessed that the book had death toll errors.


After the full documents were released after the collapse, historians like John Getty and Stephen Wheatcroft edited the number to about 2 million, with 1.057 million dying in the Gulags. The 20 million number comes from historian Robert Conquest in the '60s-'70s, and he based his numbers largely on Khrushchev's secret speech (which was full of lies as Grover Furr pointed out in his book "Khrushchev Lied"). The Gorbachev documents aren't very honest either, in fact the last 3 pages of the Katyn one seemed to be forgeries since they had a different type-face than the typewriter in Beria's room.



Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems. Deaths as a result of those systems cannot be attributed to failures in those systems, as the systems find acceptability relative to their social usefulness. The moral aspects of the systems only come into account when contradictions are present in the system, thus necessitating a dialectic for change.


As for human rights the USSR had for most part(especially during the 30s higher moral standards, more rights, personal freedoms and better living conditions for the population unlike in the westernt colonial empires like Britain and the US where eugenics and racism ran rampant, there was exploitation and oppression against the working class, massive accumulation of wealth into a very limited amount of individuals and not for the common good( like in all capitalist nations to this day), and very poor living conditions and lack of opportunity for the minorities and native colonial peoples. None of these things ever happened in any socialist nation.

Compared to the monarchial and corporate empires of the 20th century it also had a more democratic government even if it lacked the 2-party illusion of democracy.

The SU had over 70,000 Soviets across the country, and each Soviet had a number of politicians elected through direct democracy through factories elections and such. The Leningrad Soviet, for example, had over 20,000 elected officials. The Soviets also had structure, as there were local, regional, national, republic, and supreme Soviets. The system therefore worked as a chain, and the top directed the bottom, but the bottom created the top. The local Soviets were also given ownership of factories, schools, hospitals, homes, etc. The party also had such structure, as there were 130,000 party cells across the country. Those cells would elect an All-Union Party Congress that would meet twice a year. The Congress would thereupon elect the Central Committee, and the Central Committee elected the Politburo and General Secretary.

Leninist Democratic Centralism also makes Liberal Democracy more challenging, as the former is more democratic than the latter. Democracy should not simply be about giving the population a single vote every two years, rather it should represent the needs of the worker relative to their specific conditions. For this, we will need to create many councils to establish this type of rule, so as to have relativity in the concept of democratic rule in the regions. Soviet is the Russian word for Council, so when people say "Soviet Union" they mean "Council Union."

"freedom of speech and a multiparty system" The Soviets didn't lack in either. There were well over 9,000 newspapers across the country, and there were also 20,000 state employees who traveled across the nation to get peoples' personal opinions. Free speech is necessary in any Socialist state, as the converse is contradictory to the Marxist dialectic theory and thus Socialism itself.


The Soviets did allow the Church to accumulate wealth. However their difference from the Czarists was that the church could no longer receive subsidies from the government, rather a separation was made between church and state. The church was only allowed to accumulate wealth from donations and small scale agricultural works.

It must be hell for you then, living in Bulgaria since communism is done in Bulgaria. I would suggest that if you're looking for a nation similar to the 1930s Soviet Union you move to the DPRK, you can enjoy their freedom and human rights.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:


As for human rights the USSR had for most part(especially during the 30s higher moral standards, more rights, personal freedoms and better living conditions for the population unlike in the westernt colonial empires like Britain and the US where eugenics and racism ran rampant, there was exploitation and oppression against the working class, massive accumulation of wealth into a very limited amount of individuals and not for the common good( like in all capitalist nations to this day), and very poor living conditions and lack of opportunity for the minorities and native colonial peoples. None of these things ever happened in any socialist nation.

You remind me of "Professor" Grover Furr. He's a clown in the USA who is supposed to teach classes on medieval literature and the history of the English language and instead he spends most of the semester heaping praises on Stalin and discussing how the Soviet Union in the 1930s was the pinnacle of democracy.

He has written dozens of books in praise of Stalin. He has denounced Kruschev as a liar, denounced any Russian/Soviets leaders who have admitted there were Soviet crimes, as liars. He even shouted, in a debate, that the idea that Stalin even ordered a single person killed was "bull shit" and he insists that there is not a shred of evidence that Stalin ever ordered a single execution.