Racism

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse The soul pertains to everyone but you. You're just made up of something "we dont know" as you stated.

Cute . . . I think you're my new male crush, Arman. What was I thinking with Arvy, anyway?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Cute . . . I think you're my new male crush, Arman. What was I thinking with Arvy, anyway?

xxx!

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse xxx!

Oh, stop being pat.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Oh, stop being pat.

Pat is being me. I was here being me before Pat started to be me. He was just a no name newbie until he racked up some posts, and got an avatar of Robin.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Pat is being me. I was here being me before Pat started to be me. He was just a no name newbie until he racked up some posts, and got an avatar of Robin.

Now that's arrogant.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Now that's arrogant.

Indeed.

[Shahumyan]

I think an important question is
"who instigates racism"?

i think its fair to say that this comes from the fact that the bourgeoise created border to enhance their own personal wealth. Lets look at examples, Inthe 17th century Louis 14th wanted to increase the size of his borders, so that France and he could become more wealthy entities. By having more land you make more money. This was the feudal age. For him to justify the numerous wars he claimed that Spanish, Dutch, English, Jews, Jesuits, were bad for France, therefore should be attacked.

The came capitalism, and the bourgeoise built itself up within their own nation states (which had been established during feudal times). However, the final stage of capitalism, imperialism (which weve been in for the last 100 odd years), is one which needs to go outside the boundries of ones own "nation state". Let us look at one of the early examples of imperialism, WW1, here the British wanted more land, the germans wanted more land, the french wanteed more land, and the russians wanted more land. To justify the war the capitalist class claimed the other nations were barbarians and were stopping the progress of their own "nation state". For this to work, the capitalist class must split the working class into nations and races to justify capitalist imperialist methodolgy (war). This seemingly brings differences between races, which in turn brings racism. It is more self evident when in times of class conflict (such as were entering now), when the cpaitlaist leans towards fascism to help it survive, here it depends even MORE on ficticious race differences (See: Assylum laws). It must do this to stop the working class from being class consious and therefore overthrowing the capitalist class.

We can see how this changed in the USSR, when in 1917 when Russia pulled out of the war, it stated that they were all one, ie the russian working class and german working class were a single identity, and it was anal to fight each other, this led to the USSR supporting the german working class to overthrow the german capitalist class. HOWEVER, the german capitalist class again WENT TO FASCISM FOR HELP, in the form of the freikorps to smash the class conflict in favour of bourgeoise.

Differenciation merely helps the capitalist class divide and rule us, only through solidarity of class can we smash racism, and this can only be done through smashing capitalism.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Shahumyan I think an important question is
"who instigates racism"?

i think its fair to say that this comes from the fact that the bourgeoise created border to enhance their own personal wealth. Lets look at examples, Inthe 17th century Louis 14th wanted to increase the size of his borders, so that France and he could become more wealthy entities. By having more land you make more money. This was the feudal age. For him to justify the numerous wars he claimed that Spanish, Dutch, English, Jews, Jesuits, were bad for France, therefore should be attacked.

The came capitalism, and the bourgeoise built itself up within their own nation states (which had been established during feudal times). However, the final stage of capitalism, imperialism (which weve been in for the last 100 odd years), is one which needs to go outside the boundries of ones own "nation state". Let us look at one of the early examples of imperialism, WW1, here the British wanted more land, the germans wanted more land, the french wanteed more land, and the russians wanted more land. To justify the war the capitalist class claimed the other nations were barbarians and were stopping the progress of their own "nation state". For this to work, the capitalist class must split the working class into nations and races to justify capitalist imperialist methodolgy (war). This seemingly brings differences between races, which in turn brings racism. It is more self evident when in times of class conflict (such as were entering now), when the cpaitlaist leans towards fascism to help it survive, here it depends even MORE on ficticious race differences (See: Assylum laws). It must do this to stop the working class from being class consious and therefore overthrowing the capitalist class.

We can see how this changed in the USSR, when in 1917 when Russia pulled out of the war, it stated that they were all one, ie the russian working class and german working class were a single identity, and it was anal to fight each other, this led to the USSR supporting the german working class to overthrow the german capitalist class. HOWEVER, the german capitalist class again WENT TO FASCISM FOR HELP, in the form of the freikorps to smash the class conflict in favour of bourgeoise.

Differenciation merely helps the capitalist class divide and rule us, only through solidarity of class can we smash racism, and this can only be done through smashing capitalism.

The foolishness of Marxism, Communism, whatever you want to call that bile of idiocy, is that it denies individualism, it denies culture, it denies the natural hierarchy of people, indeed nature. Indeed it promotes the exact same ideals espoused now in the world, namely world government and we are all "equal". It doesn't matter what "ideology" you espouse, be it liberal or conservative, they are two sides of the same coin.

Of course Marx himself was a product of the initiates heavily influenced in his ideas by Adam Weishupts Bavarian Order of the Illuminati.

But the Marxist from Manchester wouldn't understand this. Just read my tagline.

[Shahumyan]

again, you come out with such prophetic slogans, yet cant actually critisize or put forward an alternative

"The foolishness of Marxism, Communism, whatever you want to call that bile of idiocy, is that it denies individualism"
-By allowing more time for oneself to develope into an individual? -Or do you mean putting an end to the sickening consumerism put forward by capitalism, which makes everyone the same "individual". Im sure if you ever talked to someone even from the deformed workers state of USSR, they would say they felt more individual over there

"it denies culture"
- PLease compare Soviet Armenian culture, which promoted Armenian culture, with capitalist armenia, which brings American imports and then shouts hurrah regardless of artistic ability.

"it denies the natural hierarchy of people, indeed nature"
-What natural hierarchy? That a certain group of individuals are better beings than us, therefore they are better to rule us? xxxx you.

"Indeed it promotes the exact same ideals espoused now in the world, namely world government and we are all "equal". It doesn't matter what "ideology" you espouse, be it liberal or conservative, they are two sides of the same coin."
-Again, no explaination, just a slogan, how bout you explain your "points".

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Shahumyan again, you come out with such prophetic slogans, yet cant actually critisize or put forward an alternative

"The foolishness of Marxism, Communism, whatever you want to call that bile of idiocy, is that it denies individualism"
-By allowing more time for oneself to develope into an individual? -Or do you mean putting an end to the sickening consumerism put forward by capitalism, which makes everyone the same "individual". Im sure if you ever talked to someone even from the deformed workers state of USSR, they would say they felt more individual over there

Historical materialism may be appealing, but it is anti-historical. Marx assumed that all history is a class struggle, just like Hitler assumed all history is a racial struggle. Well of course in theory it gives all these things for the individual, but in reality it replaces the individual with the collective mass and its dead weight, that is the basis of Democracy, Fascism, Communism, Marxism, Socialism, mob rule, rule by a few, over those which have been collectivized. Not much room for individualism there. It's funny how you ignored the part of Marx being nothing more than the product of the Bavarian Illuminati. Adam Weishupt's teachings are pretty close with Marx'. Furthermore, you ever wonder why it took Jewish bankers from the United Stated and England, to finance the Bolsheviks? The irony of the success of Bolshevism because of capitalist support is just hilarity.

Originally posted by Shahumyan "it denies culture"
- PLease compare Soviet Armenian culture, which promoted Armenian culture, with capitalist armenia, which brings American imports and then shouts hurrah regardless of artistic ability.

Apparently you aren't familiar with Marxism. The whole basis of that idea is egalitarianism and no differences to make "equality". It denies culture, yet it was culture that came back to bite it. Furthermore you fail to look at Soviet Armenia in the historic sense, attributing all its success due to an ideology which is untrue. Historically when there were times of peace in Armenia, whether it was the Arabs occupying Armenia, or the Crusaders in Cilicia, the flowering of culture will always take place. That has nothing to do with this or that ideology, for ideologies themselves are a product of human thought and culture.

Originally posted by Shahumyan "it denies the natural hierarchy of people, indeed nature"
-What natural hierarchy? That a certain group of individuals are better beings than us, therefore they are better to rule us? xxxx you.

Aww the little Marxist is angry. Apparently the natural hierarchy involves inequalities in minds, characters, and capacities, therefore some people will be better than others since nature is unequal and no two things are alike. As much as I hate government, the only alternative is to minimalize it and privatize it.