PDA

View Full Version : Better Red Than Dead



ogenoct
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 03:36 AM
BETTER RED THAN DEAD

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


"He who creates value works, and is a worker. A movement that wants to free labor is a workers' party. Therefore we National Socialists call ourselves a worker's party. When our victorious flags fly before us, we sing: 'We are the army of the Swastika, / Raise high the red flags! / We want to clear the way to freedom / For German Labor!'"
-- Joseph Goebbels, 1932

special status of an esoteric doctrine:
happiness - sickness = a degenerate substitute
(racial archetype synonymous with autarchy & anarchy)
pages of imperial history burned & now crisp
we greet the dogma healing the highway!
(salvaging communal life as salvation for primates)
---
Work is the Solar Principle (Creativity) as opposed to the Forces of Darkness (Inactivity, capitalism) that are the hallmarks of Exploitation. The Swastika is the Eternal Sun Wheel. The sun makes things grow and is the source of all productivity. Labor under the Swastika is Labor according to the principles of infinite regeneration. The Swastika is one of the holy symbols of the International Proletariat. The HAMMER AND SICKLE and the SWASTIKA are both signs equal in scope and force of inspiration, paving the way for the liberation of the Earth's cavernous multitudes.
---
delivered to the despot
(crumbling marble pedestal of madness)
a clear-eyed smile of condescension
(permission to unchain souls of certified conduct)
ready to smash the regime mean and lean
while smelling the rancor Kalashnikovs ready
ENDKAMPF: European weathervane rusting and dusty
the Bringer of Light laughs at the Top
the Bottom and the rest of ALL TIME
---
Pontius Pilate asked, "What is truth?"
---
The people willed the nation, and the nation willed the people. One without the other is the soil where decadence grows.
---
only hypocrites with false morals and pretentious ethics
COME AND SEE: languidly lounging in armchairs
(a well-versed reality interpreted on pretext of doom)
march up and down the gravel path
(in unison - the system objecting to itself)
the EAGLE burned by NORTHSTAR rays
---
Leningrad
(enlightened & axial time exhausted)
UP - after the death of faith & progress
(from Persia to Europe the Unity Front)
between nations & cultures
from beginning to end
absolute doom rising again
(history's spirit a foundation to doubt)
religious reality the genesis of life
(revolutionary raveling of same-ness minds)
conception conquered & integrated
---
I invoke the future Bolshevization of MAGNA EVROPA. This is in tune with the spirit of European Faith as Dr. Joseph Goebbels outlined it in his bold theory of CHRIST SOCIALISM - based on the solid tenets of Catholicism and social justice, all according to the Gospel of John. Goebbels' argument: according to Marxist doctrine, property is theft as long as it does not belong to the Jews, but voluntary sacrifice for the good of the people is Christian. This is the dualism: Hate (Jew Marx) versus Love (Aryan Christ). Jesus was a soldier, and the workers followed him.
---
Goebbels was also a proponent of true Nordic art. In contrast to desk-mind (slave of the Baltic) Alfred Rosenberg, Goebbels favored such great innovators in the arts as Vincent van Gogh ("suicided by society") and Emil Nolde. According to Goebbels, these artists were true examples of NORDIC EXPRESSIONISM, the only style that was able to capture the vitality of the Germanic race-soul in the technocratic times of rapid modernization. Unfortunately, dilettante Adolf Hitler put an end to these great new explorations of the artistic Aryan spirit by proclaiming that only the kind of art that his grandma might have enjoyed was worthy of consideration for "his" (what a joke!) folk. The rest (meaning: the good stuff), Hitler (in his typical narrow-minded Austrian way of thinking) considered products of "cultural Bolshevism." One has to admire Benito Mussolini ("VIVA IL DUCE!") for realizing the force that new ripples in art could engender by fostering a new and rejuvenated mentality amongst fearless Fascists. Marinetti and his fellow Futurist soldiers went into battle, crying: "Long live Death!"
---
traditional rituals observed
(messianic: "different but equal")
masses murdering idols
(smashed the noxious customs)
collective farms & city spectres
on sea, on land, in space divine!
---
(integration primordialized)
---
the old gods unconditionally effaced
(apocalyptic meltdown insistence)
finally & fully recovered in RED
(true grasping of ONE solid objective)
a final act: kissing the FLAG

Telperion
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 06:21 PM
Frankly, I find this poem to be incomprehensible and/or incoherent, perhaps because I don't have a good mind for poetry and prefer ideas to be expressed in prose.

However, I find the attempt to equate Bolshevism with the objectives of any sort of European nationalism to be bizzare. Bolshevism, which is equivalent to Marxist-Leninism, is (as I understand it) dedicated to the total destruction of ancient European traditions, identities, and nationalities, in order to create a new, totally synthetic culture and people (the 'new soviet man', freed from the shackles of the past). The Bolsheviks themsleves implemented such policies wherever they exercised power; the only nationalism they preserved (under Stalin) was a sort of Russian nationalism twisted in the service of the Soviet state, rather than in support of traditional Russian ideas or culture.

Of course, that's not to say there is anything good about the monopoly capitalism that is at the core of our current economic system. But proposing smaller-scale enterprise, greater respect for the community and communal values, etc., is radically different from the massive, soulessly materialistic social engineering program of Marxism-Leninism.

"Better Dead than Red" is still the maxim for anyone who cares about European cultural and national preservation, as far as I am concerned. Bolshevism is a sort of virulent disease that has to be burned out if the body of the nation is to survive.

Moody
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 06:45 PM
I do hunger for the poetic at times, and so appreciate any expressions of it.

I agree with you that ogenoct's perspective is massively flawed; however, because I suspect him to be someone of noble talent, I want to find out WHY he believes as he does.
That's why I asked the question about art - what do you think on the subject of Hitler's preference for the Neo-Classical as opposed to the Modern?

Vlad Cletus
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 10:29 PM
Work is the Solar Principle (Creativity) as opposed to the Forces of Darkness (Inactivity, capitalism) that are the hallmarks of Exploitation. The Swastika is the Eternal Sun Wheel. The sun makes things grow and is the source of all productivity. Labor under the Swastika is Labor according to the principles of infinite regeneration. The Swastika is one of the holy symbols of the International Proletariat. The HAMMER AND SICKLE and the SWASTIKA are both signs equal in scope and force of inspiration, paving the way for the liberation of the Earth's cavernous multitudes.

This gives me a new perspective on Communism. I remember the older saying better dead than red, which is obviously not true. We were in a little fight over it I kept on saying better red than dead.

Both National Socialism/Fascism and Communism employ great Nationalism, encourage hard work, pride and all sacrifice beneficial for the state. Those qualities cannot be mustered by Capitalism. Which leaves them at a great disadvantage.

Telperion
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 11:00 PM
all sacrifice beneficial for the state. But surely this is precisely the problem - shouldn't sacrifices made by individuals, if they must be made, benefit their people, their community, i.e. the 'nation' (as defined by their language, culture, traditions, customs, race, etc.)? If so, then sacrifice beneficial for 'the state' is only desirable to the extent that 'the state' is a tool designed to serve these interests.

The problem with Bolshevism is that the state, in Marxist-Leninist doctrine, is a tool which is consciously employed to destroy the nation, and every aspect of its heritage. Ask anyone who has lived under Communism in E. Europe for confirmation of that point. The fact that Bolsheviks are so effective at forcing people to sacrifice themselves for 'the state' is thus one of their worst points, from a nationalistic perspective.

BTW my view of 'the state' as a tool that can be used for good or ill is also why I tend not to think of myself as a fascist per se, since in my view many varieties of 'fascism' place too much emphasis on sacrifice to 'the state' without asking whose interests 'the state' has been engineered to serve. The cultural/national/racial question is the important one IMHO.

ogenoct
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 11:17 PM
The problem with Bolshevism is that the state, in Marxist-Leninist doctrine, is a tool which is consciously employed to destroy the nation, and every aspect of its heritage.
This is only true of certain aspects of the Bolshevik movement. Under Stalin, communism became National-Bolshevism. This was a rabid nationalist movement that pandered to the Russian masses (and not the mongrel hordes of the Central Asian steppe). Before Stalin, there was no such thing as a pan-Russian folk consciousness.

Constantin

Telperion
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 11:40 PM
Before Stalin, there was no such thing as a pan-Russian folk consciousness.

That's probably true. But, my gripe with the sort of Russian nationalism that developed under Stalin's "national bolshevism' is that this was a synthetic, engineered 'nationalism', consciously shaped by the Kremlin for the purpose of ensuring that the Great Russian people remained loyal to the Soviet regime. And one could list other examples of 'official', pro-Soviet nationalism that were sponsored by the Soviet authorities, e.g. Ukrainian folk-dancers and Cossack dancers and singers and so on.

By contrast, many of the regional folk-cultures that existed in the territory of the Soviet Union, particularly amongst the peasant classes in the territory of Russia and Ukraine, were deliberately wiped out by the Soviets. These peasants had their own regional cultures, their folk traditions etc. that grew out of centuries of development. Did any significant trace of this traditional Russian folk-culture of the villages and countryside remain after the forced collectivization of the 1930's, and the extermination of the millions of Russian and Ukrainian peasants unfortunate enough to be classed as 'Kulaks'? It seems doubtful. I suspect that a lot of what we think of as Russian 'folk culture' as it exists today is really the synthetic Soviet variety, which is about as authentically Russian as green beer on St. Patrick's Day is authentically Irish (in my opinion).

To put this another way, I don't agree in principle with the idea that the state should be employed as a tool that destroys authentic culture and tradition (developed over centuries of evolution) as part of a gigantic social engineering experiment.

ogenoct
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 11:44 PM
Well, well... What kind of "nationalism" is NOT synthetic, meaning engineered by the state to rail the masses against a perceived enemy of the collective? Do you really belive that NS Germany was any different in that respect? I doubt it. Naturally, I am not insinuating that this kind of social engineering is necessarily a bad thing. Only when it boils down to PETTY "nationalism" is it a serious hindrance to any kind of solidarity that might develop in a mighty nation like Soviet Russia. This is why I am vehemently in favor of the Bolshevik regime's efforts to support the majority (Russians) as opposed to pandering to various minorities. Stalin did not kill millions of "kulaks," by the way. I think you are reading too much into nonsensical Cold War propaganda.

Constantin

Telperion
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 12:26 AM
Well, well... What kind of "nationalism" is NOT synthetic, meaning engineered by the state to rail the masses against a perceived enemy of the collective? Do you really belive that NS Germany was any different in that respect? I doubt it.
This is actually an interesting question, i.e. what is the relationship between 'nationalism' and culture? I would agree that 'nationalism' as it developed in the 19th and into the 20th century was very largely synthetic. That does not mean the culture on which it was based was synthetic. Nazi Germany's 'nationalism' was, I'm sure, about as synthetic as that of any other country. However, to my knowledge, they did not brutally supress the authentic elements of their own folk culture in the way that Soviet Russia did as a deliberate policy. They did attempt to supress the folk cultures of many of the Slavic countries they occupied (particularly Poland), but that's another story.


Naturally, I am not insinuating that this kind of social engineering is necessarily a bad thing.
I think here we see the huge gulf between your premises and mine. Since I take an evolutionary view of society (in the Burkean sense), I tend to be very skeptical of social engineering of any kind. Hence my describing myself in my profile as a 'conservative' nationalist.


Stalin did not kill millions of "kulaks," by the way. I think you are reading too much into nonsensical Cold War propaganda.

LOL. That's right, Uncle Joe was a jolly old chap, and the best friend of all children. He certainly wouldn't have deliberately ordered those he perceived as his political enemies to be killed. Instead, he just had them 'eliminated as a class'. I'm sure they all found ways to earn a decent living of some sort after they were 'eliminated' and 'expropriated', even though they were forbidden from joining the collective farms.

Here are Stalin's own words on this topic (in translation):

Excerpt from Stalin’s address to the Conference of Marxist Students of the Agrarian Question, December 1929

"The characteristic feature of our work during the past year is: (a) that we, the party and the Soviet government, have developed an offensive on the whole front against the capitalist elements in the countryside; and (b) that this offensive, as you know, has brought about and is bringing about very palpable, positive results.

What does this mean? It means that we have passed from the policy of restricting the exploiting proclivities of the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. This means that we have made, and are still making, one of the most decisive turns in our whole policy.

That is why we have recently passed from the: policy of restricting the exploiting proclivities of a the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class...Now we are able to carry on a determined offensive against the kulaks, to break their resistance, to eliminate them as a class and substitute for their output the output of the collective farms and state farms. Now, the kulaks are being expropriated by the masses of poor and middle peasants themselves, by the masses who are putting solid collectivization into practice. Now the expropriation of the kulaks in the regions of solid collectivization is no longer just an administrative measure. Now, the expropriation of the kulaks is an integral part of the formation and development of the collective farms....

. . . {Should} the kulak . . . be permitted to join the collective farms{?} Of course not, for he is a sworn enemy of the collective farm movement. Clear, one would think."

ogenoct
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 12:32 AM
Here are Stalin's own words on this topic (in translation):

Excerpt from Stalin’s address to the Conference of Marxist Students of the Agrarian Question, December 1929

"The characteristic feature of our work during the past year is: (a) that we, the party and the Soviet government, have developed an offensive on the whole front against the capitalist elements in the countryside; and (b) that this offensive, as you know, has brought about and is bringing about very palpable, positive results.

What does this mean? It means that we have passed from the policy of restricting the exploiting proclivities of the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. This means that we have made, and are still making, one of the most decisive turns in our whole policy.

That is why we have recently passed from the: policy of restricting the exploiting proclivities of a the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class...Now we are able to carry on a determined offensive against the kulaks, to break their resistance, to eliminate them as a class and substitute for their output the output of the collective farms and state farms. Now, the kulaks are being expropriated by the masses of poor and middle peasants themselves, by the masses who are putting solid collectivization into practice. Now the expropriation of the kulaks in the regions of solid collectivization is no longer just an administrative measure. Now, the expropriation of the kulaks is an integral part of the formation and development of the collective farms....

. . . {Should} the kulak . . . be permitted to join the collective farms{?} Of course not, for he is a sworn enemy of the collective farm movement. Clear, one would think."


That quote proves nothing. Stalin said that he wanted to eliminate the kulaks AS A CLASS - not as a people. This kind of evidence is similar to the holoHOAX propgandists' use of the Wannsee Protocol as evidence that millions of jews were "exterminated." Plus, the kulaks deserved it the same way that the corporate exploiter-beasts nowadays deserve it.

Constantin

Telperion
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 12:54 AM
That quote proves nothing. Stalin said that he wanted to eliminate the kulaks AS A CLASS - not as a people. This kind of evidence is similar to the holoHOAX propgandists' use of the Wannsee Protocol as evidence that millions of jews were "exterminated."
So no one killed anyone then? Well, I'm relieved to hear that. All this fuss about mass-killings, deportations etc. was just a lot of hot air. But perhaps you can forgive my confusion on this topic. You see, in the course of reading the sorts of statements by Soviet leaders such as Lenin like the one quoted below, I developed the impression that deliberately killing perceived political opponents was a Soviet state policy ever since 1917, and that Stalin was just continuing that policy:

'Dictatorship [of the proletariat] is iron rule, government that is revolutionarily bold, swift and ruthless in suppressing both exploiters and hooligans...the fight against this [petty-bourgeois] element cannot be waged solely with the aid of propaganda and agitation, solely by organizing competition and by selecting organizers. The struggle must also be waged by means of coercion.. As the fundamental task of the government becomes, not military repression, but administration, the typical manifestation of suppression and compulsion will be, not shooting on the spot, but trial by court...the [proletarian] courts are an instrument for inculcating discipline.' (V. Lenin, 'Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government', in 'The Lenin Anthology', R. Tucker (Ed.) Norton: New York, 1975, at pages 452-453) [My comment: The 'petty-bourgeois' in this case were shopkeepers who objected to having the contents of their stores confiscated by the state without compensation.]



'No mercy to these enemies of the people, the enemies of socialism, the enemies of the toilers! War to the bitter end on the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals; war on the rogues, the idlers and hooligans!...these parasites...are the principal enemies of socialism. These enemies must be placed under the special surveillance of the whole people; they must be ruthlessly punished for the slightest violation of the laws and regulations of socialist society. Any display of weakness, hesitation or sentimentality in this respect would be an immense crime against socialism....' (V. Lenin, 'How to Organise Competition', in 'The Lenin Anthology', ibid., at page 429) [My comment: Even if you were neither rich nor a 'bourgeois' intellectual, God help you if the local branch of the Cheka decided you were a 'rogue', 'idler' or 'hooligan'.]



'Thousands of practical forms and methods of accounting and controlling the rich, the rogues and the idlers should be devised and put to the practical test...to cleanse the land of Russia of all sorts of harmful insects, of crook-fleas, of bed-bugs - the rich, and so on and so forth. In one place...[they] will be put in prison...in [another] place, one out of every ten idlers will be shot on the spot.' (Ibid. at page 432) [My comment: same as above.]






And then some further gems by Lenin himself, taken from D. Volkogonov, "Lenin: A New Biography" The Free Press: New York, 1994. General Volkogonov was granted access to the KGB archives on Lenin, where he found the source material containing these quotes:

'Surely you don't think we'll come out as the winners if we don't use the harshest revolutionary terror?' (p.181)



'[I]n every grain-growing district, 25-30 rich hostages should be taken who will answer with their lives for the collection and loading of all surpluses [of grain].' (p.181)
[General Volkogonov notes on p.235 that such hostages were not those guilty of crimes against the Soviet regime, rather they were selected randomly from amongst those designated as the 'rich' – which often meant a peasant who owned one or two farm animals, as opposed to none ]




'Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!' (p.197) [My comment: A ‘kulak’ was a ‘wealthy’ peasant, which as noted above often just meant a peasant who owned a few farm animals]



'[S]hoot conspirators and waverers without asking anyone or any idiotic red tape' (p.201)





'The bourgeoisie practiced terror against the workers, soldiers and peasants in the interests of a small group of landowners and bankers, whereas the Soviet regime applies decisive measures against landowners, plunderers and their accomplices in the interests of the workers, soldiers and peasants.' (p.182)



As General Volkogonov puts in, in commenting on this last quote, 'Such an argument could be used to justify any crime perpetrated by the [Soviet] state. The leaders of the revolution had become priests of terror.' (p.182)

And that was all BEFORE Stalin took power, by the way. Apparently you think Stalin was more gentle than Lenin?





Plus, the kulaks deserved it the same way that the corporate exploiter-beasts nowadays deserve it.
What exactly is the 'it' they deserved? I'm sure some poor bastard unfortunate enough to own a couple of cows and a few chickens, thus making him subject to classification as a Kulak, did indeed deserve 'it', whatever 'it' was.

ogenoct
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 12:56 AM
Naturally, one has to eliminate counter-revolutionaries. But it seems to me that you are trying to tell me that "evil" Stalin mass-murdered millions of innocent peasants. Not true. I do not buy it for a second. You should read the following:

http://northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

HAIL Stalin!

Constantin

Telperion
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 01:06 AM
I'm sure the 'Communist Party Marxist-Leninist Revolutionaries' is a completely objective source on this topic....In any case, I don't see the point of bickering about the numbers of people killed, even though I'm glad to hear the whole Ukrainian famine thing was just Nazi propaganda facilitated by the Hearst publishing empire. My point, however, is that killing the Kulaks was a deliberate Soviet state policy. My source? Lenin himself. Again:

'Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!' V.I. Lenin (Volkogonov, supra, p.197)

Did Lenin not really mean it when he said 'Death to them'? And again, was Stalin more of a 'liberal' than Lenin?

ogenoct
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 01:15 AM
Sure, Stalin was more "liberal" than Lenin since the former was not philosemitic like the latter! As for the "Kulak Question": You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs! I am sure books written by jews in capitalist yankee-land are more credible than pamphlets published by Communists... Or where do you get your anti-Stalinist literature from?

Constantin

Telperion
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 01:39 AM
1.) I think you should write a doctoral dissertation advancing the thesis that Stalin was more 'liberal' than Lenin.

2.) Are you now admitting that the Kulak question was resolved by killing the Kulaks, or do you mean something else by "breaking some eggs?"



3.) Most of my anti-Stalinist literature was obligingly provided by Stalin himself.


By the way, I am not aware of any evidence indicating that the late Soviet General Dimitri Volkogonov was a 'jew in capitalist yankee-land'. I thought he was Russian

ogenoct
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 01:49 AM
1.) I think you should write a doctoral dissertation advancing the thesis that Stalin was more 'liberal' than Lenin.

2.) Are you now admitting that the Kulak question was resolved by killing the Kulaks, or do you mean something else by "breaking some eggs?"



3.) Most of my anti-Stalinist literature was obligingly provided by Stalin himself.



First of all, everybody knows that Stalin was an avatar of Manu (re: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm)! Because of his god-like status, he could have done no wrong! Stalin was "a man against time" - a force of nature, a tempest, a hurricane!

Some kulaks deserved to die, sure. Remember: a lot of peasants starved and suffered because of their horrible schemes of exploitation.

You must have read Stalin's words from a parallel universe to have reached such preposterous conclusions.

Telperion
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 03:49 PM
First of all, everybody knows that Stalin was an avatar of Manu (re: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm)! Because of his god-like status, he could have done no wrong!...
I'll leave it to anyone who reads this thread to decide for themselves who is making preposterous conclusions.

Siegfried
Saturday, April 24th, 2004, 10:16 PM
First of all, everybody knows that Stalin was an avatar of Manu

Why exactly do you think Stalin is an avatar of Manu?

Fraxinus Excelsior
Saturday, April 24th, 2004, 11:28 PM
First of all, everybody knows that Stalin was an avatar of Manu (re: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm)! Because of his god-like status, he could have done no wrong! Stalin was "a man against time" - a force of nature, a tempest, a hurricane!

Some kulaks deserved to die, sure. Remember: a lot of peasants starved and suffered because of their horrible schemes of exploitation.

You must have read Stalin's words from a parallel universe to have reached such preposterous conclusions.
Well, I didn't know that it (stalin) was "an avatar of Manu", but I did know that it was in no way a "man against time"-but, that he was a "man" against intelligence and all that was and is the ideal of European man.

stalin as a hurricane? No, "he" was more of a weak-minded lemming, than a "force of nature".

Explain the benefit, to Europe and the rest of the Aryan race, of stalin's Ukrainian Famine in the 1930's? How can one who identifies himself as a "pan-aryan communist" support the genocide of Ukrainian Aryans? How did these Ukrainians ask to be starved to death? I can answer this one; they didn't. They only asked for freedom from the bolsheviks and jews that had invaded and laid waste to the Ukraine.

ogenoct
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 12:45 AM
I do not believe in the Ukrainian "Famine"! It is capitalist (jewish) propaganda!

Constantin

Frans_Jozef
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 01:04 AM
First of all, everybody knows that Stalin was an avatar of Manu (re: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm)! Because of his god-like status, he could have done no wrong! Stalin was "a man against time" - a force of nature, a tempest, a hurricane!

Some kulaks deserved to die, sure. Remember: a lot of peasants starved and suffered because of their horrible schemes of exploitation.

You must have read Stalin's words from a parallel universe to have reached such preposterous conclusions.

he was an armenoid-caucasian who spoke bad russian, totally paranoid and vengeful and jealous as most eastern mediterrenean montagnards, he set up propaganda films where he cuddles children whose parents were deported to camps, once the kids weren't of any use they met a grisly ends as their parents.
he was no Manu, he was the typical turanische Herr who governs with iron fist over submissive, spineless provincials, brutally masked behind a fatherly figure and a false smile...very oriental.

Telperion
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 03:50 AM
he was no Manu, he was the typical turanische Herr who governs with iron fist over submissive, spineless provincials, brutally masked behind a fatherly figure and a false smile...very oriental.
Indeed, Stalin's career invites comparison to archetypal oriental despots such as Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. All three were absolute rulers over large empires on the Eurasian land mass, who practiced rule through fear, enslaved a supine, terrified populace, generated no significant cultural achievements of their own, and whose empires disintegrated a relatively short time (very short, in Attila's case) after their deaths.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 06:18 AM
I do not believe in the Ukrainian "Famine"! It is capitalist (jewish) propaganda!

Constantin
Who would have thought that somebody who believes stain (oops, I meant stalin) was "godlike", would also believe that the Ukrainian Famine is "capitalist (jewish) propaganda"?(sarcasm)

Could these jewish-capitalists be the same jews that wrote "the communist manifesto" and "das kapital"?

Here, check these out:

www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/Great_Famine/index.shtml (http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/Great_Famine/index.shtml)
209.82.14.226/history/famine/ (http://209.82.14.226/history/famine/)
www.faminegenocide.com/newfindings.html (http://www.faminegenocide.com/newfindings.html)
home.earthlink.net/~utzdana/ukraine.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/~utzdana/ukraine.htm)
shevchenko.org/famine/ (http://shevchenko.org/famine/)