quotes from famous leftists about race

Mohandas Gandhi:

Che Geuvara:

Karl Marx:

 

Marx also referred to the Scottish highlanders, the Basques, Bretons, and Serbs as "Völkerabfälle", which means refuse of nations, stating that when the revolution broke out they would have to be left behind because they were primitive societies two stages behind the rest of Europe.
(article by Marx in Rheinische Zeitung)

 

inb4 "It was a different time and they wouldn't be like that today."

 

This is just one of the reasons why I do not see any contradiction between being a communist and being a racial separatist.

 

What point are you trying to make?

 

That the brain is smaller than the penis.

 

I found those statements by leftist icons to be interesting in that they are the very people that leftists of today plan their ideology around. The fact that Marx being a jew himself while having nothing positive to say about his people speaks volumes about the massive crimes on humanity commited by jews worldwide.

But you lost me by saying that a commie and a racial separatist are one in the same. Zook and myself continue to push for racial separation as we know that this is the only way to bring about a peaceful non-racial tension atmosphere in any nation. Haven't you been paying attention to the many posts that highlight the racial discord when races are mixed via integration policies? How are race relations working out so far in America under our current mixing of the races and the multi cultures? Do you ever hear of any native Indians having racial problems inside their reservations where they are basically made up entirely of their own kind? Have you seen any person having 100% Indian blood living outside of their Indian community? There's a good reason why you don't and that is that they want to live a peaceful and harmonious life.

 

Libhater, I did not mean that communism is the same thing as racial separatism, just that communism and racial separatism do not fundamentally conflict with eachother, and that an individual can be both.

You and I agree very much on social issues, but we might have some disagreements on economic issues.


And by "Indian", hopefully you knew that I was referring to people from India that had come to settle in South Africa.

That the people the progressives admire as heroes are the same people that would now be called "racists" by these same progressives.
That it is rather hypocritical, or at least very ironic, that many progressives have pictures of Gandhi hanging up, wear T-shirts of Che Guevara, and promote ideologies based on writings of Karl Marx.

 

With the exception of Gandhi I'd say you're picking some pretty sketchy people to quote.

 

I suspect similar things are true of most heroes, especially historical ones. People are fundamentally flawed.

 

Karl Marx = right wing pet:




That racist hater was the best friend Republican Wall Street ever had.

 

The fact that Marx, a jew himself, wrote such criticism about the special role his own people played in the economic structure should speak volumes. And the fact that Marx clearly did not have any problem with "political correctness" when it came to ethnicity is just one more reason why he is one of my favorite intellectuals. (Of course, I do not support communism in the exact same way he envissioned it)

Marx clearly had no problem exterminating an entire nationality of people to ensure they would not pose a threat to his Revolution. His russian successors clearly followed his advice.




Leon Trotsky
Lev Davidovich Bronstein (Trotsky's actual name) coined the French word "racisme" and used it for the first time in 1922. It was from this french word that the English word "racism" quickly evolved into its present definition. Before this time, only the word racialism was in common use, and meant the "belief in the superiority of a particular race", without necessarily any negetive connotations.

This a a quote from his 1930 writing, "The History of the Russian Revolution", and is the first time in recorded literature that the word "racist" appeared:

Here is a translation:
"Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: "In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them." This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the racists."


Let us see what else Trotsky had to say:

"We have to run a hot iron down the spine of the Ukrainian kulaks - that will create a good working environment."

As for "prejudice", it is indisputable that Trotsky wanted to get rid of the bourgeoisie by any means necessary:

"The Red Terror is a weapon utilized against a class, doomed to destruction, which does not wish to perish... the Red Terror hastens the destruction of the bourgeoisie."

"As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the ‘sacredness of human life’. "

"In not more than a month’s time terror will assume very violent forms, after the example of the great French Revolution; the guillotine... will be ready for our enemies... that remarkable invention of the French Revolution which makes man shorter by a head."



Here are a few more quotes from Karl Marx:

"The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races."
Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849

"Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas."
MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879

"What is the object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money."

"Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time." "What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism."
"A World Without Jews," p. 37, 40

Marx even called Ferdinand Lassalle a "Judel Itzig" (Jewish Ni*ger).
Der Judische Nig*er, MEKOR III, 82, July 30, 1862

(Apparently the N***** word is censored out by this forum. Itzig was actually the name of a prominent Jewish family, but in this context, along with the words "Jid" or "Jüd", it was used to refer to jews in the same way that the word Nig*er was later used to refer to negroes.)

 

The "Slavophiles" which Trotsky refers to were nationalistic Slavs who took pride in their nation, and wanted to preserve Slavic language culture and their traditional way of life. Trotsky saw them merely as an impedement to his internationalist communist plans. Ironically, it would later be people that wanted to preserve their national identities that was one of the main causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union completely disregarded the desires of its diverse populace to preserve their unique respective identities, and the communists later paid the price for it.

http://www.princeton.edu/~mbeissin/beissinger.ceh.article.pdf
recommended further reading:
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Death-Soviet-Empire/dp/0805041540"]Amazon.com: The Strange Death of the Soviet Empire (9780805041545): David Pryce-Jones: Books[/ame]

 

Anders,

You made some very good quotes in those two posts.

In college I majored in 19th century literature with considerable emphasis on Russian classics. Therefore, I am (or used to be) thoroughly familiar with slavophilism as taught by Aksakov, Khomiakov, and Kirevskii and their conflicts with Westernizers led by Herzen. Both factions had good stated intents: reform, morality, social justice, emancipation for serfs. But their methods or means of achieving these things were different.

Then came the Russian Revolution (first in 1905 and in 1918 ). These were brought about by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky - all of whom condemned these reforms as not being utilitarian or practical. They saw revolution, not reform, as social corrective. And as I have stated here before - it was their financiers on Wall Street that enabled them.

Behind all this was a sinister plot to destroy all Slavics as well as all other dark skinned peoples. You will find further information in the personal letters of racist Jack London to his protegé Cloudesley Johns. See the following:

http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=2837

Those letters are in Volume I. In summary he wrote:

"we socialists will destroy all dark skinned races of the earth - we will kill all Blacks, all Jews, all Asians, all Latin Americans, all Slavics ... we will advance all northern Europeans and trample all others underneath the iron heel of socialism"


Both London and Johns were members of the notorious Bohemian Club:


http://www.prisonplanet.com/bohemian_clubs_friends_foes_dismiss_dark_tales.html

http://www.bilderberg.org/bohos.htm

 

History is full of ironies.

The progressives of today are still trying to push racial policies, but now they want to get rid of the european peoples — in whichever part of the world they may be in — by bringing in migrants from other countries and promoting mixing. It is quite revealing that these pro-immigration policies are only targeted at the european and white countries, with special emphasis on the ethnic germanic nations. The real reason progressives are trying so hard to promote mixing (using guilt and demonisation of those who disagree) is not because they they think the concept of race is just silly, but because they want to the white race to mix away. The televission programs are really pushing this be squeezing in subtle messages wherever they can. The fact that it is always a white individual, usually with a black, is particularly revealing.

These are typical:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjbII5xqG8s"]DJ Hero 2 - Mix 2Gether - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCDMGu-xi30"]SVT: Grotesco - Blanda Upp - YouTube[/ame]

The swedish government even paid to broadcast a televission commercial with a song that told its citizens to "mix it up", showing a nazi getting into the mood, and a young swedish woman humping a black man while singing the swedish anthem. This clearly was an insult to the sweden social democratic party, as some of their members have been notoriously known to use the anthem for their own purposes such that now many swedish people are reluctant to sing their own national anthem! Most online postings of the anthem, at least by ethnic swedes, now carry a disclaimer: "I am not a nazi or racist" !

 

People live in particular times and mostly accept the drivel that is put about in them. Obviously educated people ('leftists') pick up new ideas sooner than those who live in trees (teabags). The leaders of the French Revolution, to take an example, had some archaic ideas. That is because they lived a long time ago, like modern Republicans.

 

You can think whatever you want about the originators of the leftist movement.
But whatever excuses you make for them, it is only fair to also apply to the National Socialists.

Comparing National Socialism to the harsh strategies used by the nazis is no different than comparing the American president Obama to the even harsher strategies used by the Communists. Although Obama is supposedly a "moderate", there is a clear line of progression from early leftists to Obama and his core supporters.

Progressives complain to no end about the "evil" and "racism" from the right, when they, in fact, have no room to complain. Racial separatism is no more "racist" than the race-based policies progressives are fighting so hard for, often blatently when their funding or laws have specifically specified racial (non-white) requirements.

One specific example involved federal funding ("Gautreaux" Program) for building low income housing for low income residents from Chicago to the surrounding suburbs, with the stipulation that there would only be funding if the city's racial composition was higher than a certain percentage of whites. The obvious goal was to move blacks (although also hispanics) from Chicago to the white cities, because studies had shown that low income minorities had lower crime and higher employment rates in the white cities. No study was submitted on how these poor minorities would affect a middle class suburb.
http://epa.sagepub.com/content/14/3/229.abstract
(of course, the real reason black students in the white suburbs did better was because they had smart and caring parents, that wanted to move their children out of the ghetto from which they came. hardly surprising that parents that did well in school to be able to afford a more expensive house would have children that would also do better in school)

 

The purpose of 'national socialism' was to defend capitalism and capitalist property, and like other fascist movements it was prepared to use any tired old drivel with widespread appeal amongst the mugs to do so. Get rid of capitalism and you get shot of all this tripe. End of story.

 

That is so closed-minded. What about protecting language, culture, national identity, ensuring decent living conditions for members of a group that had much in common?

Sounds like communism or progessivism to me. Honestly, how can you say such things? Do you not realise the irony?

In any case, I am by no means in favor of capitalism, at least not in its current form. But I neither would want there to be a complete elimination of free markets. That would be totalitarianism. Not a good idea to give the government direct control over all the assets.

 

Nonsense.

Furthermore, if there has been racial mixing at all in the past 200+ years it is because Europeans caused it. It was Europeans that invaded Third World countries and raped women there just like White American slavers raped Black women. For centuries Europeans stole resources from those countries just like Bush stole billions in oil from Iraq. Where would Europe be today if it hadn't stolen all that capital? Where would the USA be if it hadn't done the same??

And who financed Marx and Lenin? It was Republican Wall Street - not leftists.

 

This is just another example of the racial views coming from the left. Blame the Europeans, adding to a collective sense of guilt. But it would be wrong to blame any other race for the actions of some of their members. In any case, the very disproportionate historical role of individuals of jewish ethnicity in slavery and colonialism has generally been supressed. Just another example of selective viewpoints by those in academia.

Most of the early slave auctions were closed on jewish holidays because the jews were so prominent in the slave trade. The reason for this was that jews were often relegated to business concerns that were seen as too "dirty" or "dishonorable" for the english aristocracy and merchant class, and the jews also had no qualms about charging interest rates, which was not sanctioned by most Christian churches. By some estimates, one quarter of the slave ships were financed or owned by jews.

http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/nacs0502.html

Leonard Jeffries, an African American faculty member at the City College of New York, said in a speech, "Everyone knows rich Jews helped finance the slave trade."

Louis Farrakhan, a leading member of the Nation of Islam (it need not be mentioned to Americans that this organization does not have many white members) wrote a book quoting from historical research about jewish ownership in South American sugar plantations that used brutal forms of slavery. Of the 9.6 million Africans where shipped to the "New World" between the 16th and 19th centuries, less than 5 percent, 427,000, were brought to what is now the United States. Nearly 4 million went to Brazil, the largest single devourer of African labor. There, the average life span of a slave was a only a few years.

Jews were the predominant retailers of slaves in the colony. The shipping of Africans to Brazil was monopolized by the Dutch West India Company, which sold them "at public auctions against cash payment. The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews.
"Jews in Colonial Brazil", Arnold Wiznitzer


Individuals of jewish ethnicity also played a huge role in the colonialism of India and China.

The fact that these individuals were jews is inseparable from the role they played, as Marx (himself a jew) was well aware. The influential merchant class of jews often acted as a collective force, giving preference to their own members. So why is blaming Europeans okay, but not jews? Just more hypocrisy from progressives.

Let me make this clear: I am not blaming the jewish peoples. I am merely trying to make a comparison to the incessant attacks from progressives on the european peoples. Jews were far more likely to be engaged in foreign oppression in this period of world history than were europeans.

 

While you started this thread by making intelligent comments, unfortunately you have now descended into making bigoted comments, which is too bad. History speaks for itself which is why I quote from historical sources that are well documented. By contrast you are now making comments like "progressives ... want to get rid of Europeans" which are just pathetically laughable. How can you post such nonsense??

 

I dont think Ghandi can really be regarded as a "leftist"

 

He undoubtedly advocated for socialistic policies, which would have been considered left-leaning in Britain at the time.
http://sfr-21.org/gandhi-communism.html

I can understand how you may think this seems ridiculous, and it may not be coming from the majority of progressives, but there are clear attempts by certain progressives in academic institutions and the media to do this. They are intentionally trying to make our countries more diverse, while at the same time trying to get everyone to racially mix. It is a progression. Soon you Americans will see interracial mixed families frequently depicted in children's books and school material, which is subtle propaganda targeted at the young. And they will try to make whites in society feel guilty and "racist" if they express preference in only dating someone of their same ethnicity. This has already happened in Sweden, and is already in the process of happening in Denmark.

 

I have not made any bigoted comments. You have been subtely indoctrinated and do not realise it. Any discussion that hits certain specific topics is immediately branded "bad". This is, of course, very limiting and hypocritical. Racial differences (genetic, cultural, and sociological) have very profound effects on society.

History does indeed speak for itself. Except when it is rewritten, and the events selectively recorded, to support a social/political ideology, which has happened in the schools. Russian and Malaysian students, for example, are taught a significantly different version of history than Western Europeans/Americans/Australians. American academic institutions are currently making a profound effort to gain a foothold in the Chinese educational system before China becomes a developed country, for this reason.

A look into old American political/history textbooks from before the 1950's shows interesting differences from the current ones.

And, of course, the media gives a consistently biased view of history. The types of policies used by the nazis were fundamentally no different from that used by another other country, including Russia, France, Japan, and to a lesser extent USA because it was not as directly involved in the war.

Here is just one example of how you have been indoctrinated: Was the ku klux klan really evil? Am I bigoted for asking this question? Did you that the KKK was responding to racial violence by blacks against whites. Why were you never told about the militant black organisations in school?