• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis)

Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

LaRouche is a far-Right American conspiracy theorist with a history of anti-Semitism....

The first time I ever heard Lyndon LaRouche interviewed he described himself as a doctrinaire Marxist....and so did his followers.

He was saying the same things then that he does now.

So were there magic words spoken, accompanied by a puff of lightning and a flash of smoke, that transformed him into a "far-Rightist"?

Or is "Rightest" a code word for a Leftist that other Leftists don't like?
 
crunchy5 said:
Also there is the aspect of thickness, a prevalent mode amongst the common nazi, your bright nazi is just a cynical abuser of the common nazi and their thickness, the desire to be a big fish, no matter how small the pond, is strong in some folk.
There is an easy rebutal to those who argue technicalities and accurate numbers of the dead, were the Jews put in camps and ghettos, were they used as slave labour, were they held in such conditions by a brutal regime ? If so there was a holocaust no matter what the method, if the answer is no to the questions then your either going to leave the conversation or get into a fight.
Most racists are aware of the incongruities in their thinking but they don't care because they're bad.

i was always of the impression that most holocaust deniers based the holocaust denial not on the fact that there were no concentration camps, which is an undeniable fact, but as to whether or not 6 million jews were killed sytematically in gas chambers. hence the leuchter report etc.
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

OldTimeRadio said:
LaRouche is a far-Right American conspiracy theorist with a history of anti-Semitism....

The first time I ever heard Lyndon LaRouche interviewed he described himself as a doctrinaire Marxist....and so did his followers.

He was saying the same things then that he does now.

So were there magic words spoken, accompanied by a puff of lightning and a flash of smoke, that transformed him into a "far-Rightist"?

Or is "Rightest" a code word for a Leftist that other Leftists don't like?

Maybe he had degenerated (a term loved by lefties) before he became a far rightist. I know his organisation (while he was "left" ) had a policy of physically assaulting members of other left groups.

Was he pushing anti-semitism when he was a "marxist"?

Just because someone calls themselves marxist/socialist doesnt mean its true. You dont have to get a quality cert from anyone.
 
Good article on LaRouche here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Heres another by a former associate:
Lyndon LaRouche: Fascist Demagogue
A '60's Socialist Takes a Hard Right


http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/Wohlforth.html

There is also a chapter regarding him in:

Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth, On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2000.

Great book. It also covers Marlene Dixon, the Christian Identity movement, Posse Commitatus, Scientology, Synanon, and Aryan Nation. Additionally, the book discusses actions of Trotskyist groups in the United Kingdom particularly those led by Ted Grant (Miltant)and Gerry Healy (WRP).

I have the chapter on Militant/Ted Grant in e format (its also got an extra 1,200 words than the published version). I think i'll publish it here as I have the permission of Dennis Tourish to do so.
 
Is there anything in Marxism which neccessarily precludes the possibility of anti-semitism? Was Stalin not quite the anti-semite himself? I would have thought that it was a very easy road to cross between Marxism, which is critical of capitalism, and far-right anti-semitism given the close identification which many make between capitalism and the Jews.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
Is there anything in Marxism which neccessarily precludes the possibility of anti-semitism? Was Stalin not quite the anti-semite himself? I would have thought that it was a very easy road to cross between Marxism, which is critical of capitalism, and far-right anti-semitism given the close identification which many make between capitalism and the Jews.

Ah! All the non-Stalinist "Marxists" would say that Stalin was not a Marxist.

I really have never met anyone on the left, Marxist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, Anarchist, Social-Democrat etc who has associated Capitalism with the Jews.
 
Heres the chapter on Ted Grant / Militant by Denis Tourish:

This is an expanded (1800 extra words) version of the Chapter on the CWI in :

On the Edge: Political Cults of the Left and Right
Sharpe/New York 2000
By Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth

It was cut from the published version due to space reasons.

Chapter Six

The Lonely Passion Of Ted Grant

The year is 1933. Fascism has triumphed in Italy, and Hitler has just come to power in Germany. Tension is rising in Spain and Portugal, where fascist parties have their eyes set on further victories. Already, some voices can be heard predicting that a new world war is inevitable. Millions of German Jews still go about their daily business, unaware of the fate that awaits them.

Half a world away, in South Africa, a small group of Trotskyists, including a youthful Ted Grant, has concluded that capitalism cannot hope to survive the combined calamities of depression, fascism, and imminent world war. They fervently believe that, from the flames of conflict, a new world order will be born. But success is only possible, they reason, if a mass revolutionary party based on the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky can be built.

Grant and his associates are convinced that they are destined to become such a party. This daunting ambition is summed up in the name which they select for themselves - the Workers International League (WIL). All they need is a more receptive climate for their ceaseless work of agitation, propaganda and organisation. Where will they go, and what will they do?


Now, fast forward to Britain in late 1991. The Workers International League, in its entirety, had emigrated there in the mid-1930s. Ted Grant is now in his late seventies, shabbily dressed, except when addressing public meetings, and constantly immersed in the latest edition of The Financial Times. It has been a life long addiction: there is probably no one on the planet who has studied its distinctive pink pages with as much devotion as this man, whose main goal in life is the overthrow of the system the newspaper is pledged to defend. Decades on, Grant’s faith in ‘the revolution’ is undimmed. For over sixty years he has sat in dingy offices in London, and plotted, and planned, and hoped and waited. People who encounter him after an interval of many years all come away with the same observation: ‘He is just the same as always!’ If the dialectic is the philosophy of contradiction and change, Ted Grant is to all outward appearances its living refutation. His world outlook is essentially the same today as it was in 1928. He has spent the last seventy years sealed inside the cloistered world of Trotskyist politics. But, as the new year dawns, he faces expulsion from the organisation he himself founded so many decades earlier. As his life winds to a close, it will be necessary to start all over again.

For the most part it has been a lonely life. Briefly, in the 1940s, Grant helped lead a unified Trotskyist organisation (the Revolutionary Communist Party) which, at its peak, claimed 500 members. In the 1950s, Grant’s coterie shrank to a few dozen people. Then, in the 1980s, the number of his supporters soared, amazingly, to around 8000. By this stage the WIL had transmuted into the Militant Tendency - or, in its international variant, the Committee for a Workers International (CWI). Its members joined the Labour Party, hoping to obtain an influence there which they knew they could never achieve under their own banner. In this guise, it had won a majority within the Labour Party’s official youth section, the Young Socialists - its major source of recruits in the heady days of the 1970s and 1980s.

Inevitably, as the prospect of revolution receded and fractiousness reasserted itself, this reduced itself back to its original state of a few dozen members. Grant had always resembled a down at heel teacher in one of the poorer British colleges of further education, rather than a leader of the world revolution. Even his greatest admirers never pretended that he was over endowed with charisma. How had this most unlikely of gurus managed to build a relatively formidable force, even if only for a short period of time?

This is the story of one man’s obsession with the dream of revolution. In the case of Ted Grant there were never any other distractions. From the age of fifteen Trotskyism has been the only passion in a long life dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism. Like their mentor, Grant’s supporters lived in an intense private world where their only intellectual nourishment came from the collected works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky - and Ted Grant. The saga of the CWI’s rise and fall demonstrates the impasse that awaits high activity groups unable to distinguish between their dreams and reality.


For much more fun and games, go to: Grant
 
ramonmercado said:
Ah! All the non-Stalinist "Marxists" would say that Stalin was not a Marxist..

Honestly, the radical left are worse than the music press for building people up and knocking them down. As soon as they get any kind of success they start calling them a sell-out. :lol:

ramonmercado said:
I really have never met anyone on the left, Marxist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, Anarchist, Social-Democrat etc who has associated Capitalism with the Jews.

I'm talking historically here. Were the Jews not mistrusted by many on the marxist left (before the holocaust at least)?
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

I'm talking historically here. Were the Jews not mistrusted by many on the marxist left (before the holocaust at least)?
Considering how many on 'the marxist left' (before and after the holocaust), were actually Jewish, I'd be interested to see any documented evidence you might wish to put forward. :)
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

OldTimeRadio said:
LaRouche is a far-Right American conspiracy theorist with a history of anti-Semitism....

The first time I ever heard Lyndon LaRouche interviewed he described himself as a doctrinaire Marxist....and so did his followers.

He was saying the same things then that he does now.

So were there magic words spoken, accompanied by a puff of lightning and a flash of smoke, that transformed him into a "far-Rightist"?

Or is "Rightest" a code word for a Leftist that other Leftists don't like?
Left or Right, it makes no odds, a bast'd's a bast'd...(& he doesn't seem to like us Brits, does he?)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

I'm talking historically here. Were the Jews not mistrusted by many on the marxist left (before the holocaust at least)?
Considering how many on 'the marxist left' (before and after the holocaust), were actually Jewish, I'd be interested to see any documented evidence you might wish to put forward. :)

Well given that I'm actually asking a question then it should be fairly obvious I'm not claiming there is evidence or that I have it. Well, fairly obvious to any reasonable reader, at any rate.

However, if you're really interested then I'd recommend reading A History Of The Jews by Paul Johnson. As I recall it dealt with this issue.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Jews-Paul ... 0060915331

The fact that there were many Jewish leftists does not preclude the possibility of anti-semitism. Unless, of course, you believe that all Marxists are or were working class. Not to mention Marx's own take on Judaism as "hucksterism".
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

Well if you're really interested then I'd recommend reading A History Of The Jews by Paul Johnson. ...

All is made clear. :rofl:

Certainly, anti-Semitism, can pop up anywhere. However, Paul Johnson is most famous for being anti-Left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)

...

During the 1970s Johnson become increasing conservative in his outlook, where he has largely remained. In his Enemies of Society (1977), following a series of articles in the British press, he vehemently attacked the trade union movement over violence and intolerance, terming them "fascists". Certainly, as Britain’s economy faltered, Johnson was seduced by Margaret Thatcher’s message of less government and less taxation. Emotionally and mentally, he was won over to the Right and became among the closest advisers to Margaret Thatcher. “In the 1970s Britain was on its knees. The left had no answers. I became disgusted by the over-powerful trade unions which were destroying Britain,” he recalls. [4] After Margaret Thatcher's victory in the general election of 1979 Johnson advised on changes to legislation concerning trade unions, and was also one of Mrs Thatcher's speechwriters. “I was instantly drawn to her," he recalls. ...

... As a conservative Catholic, he regarded Liberation theology as a heresy and defends clerical celibacy, but sees women priests as inevitable.[13]

Admired by conservatives in the United States, he is strongly anti-communist[14]. Johnson has defended Richard Nixon[15] in the Watergate scandal, finding his cover-up considerably less heinous than Bill Clinton's perjury, and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra Affair. In his Spectator column he has defended convicted perjurer and friend Jonathan Aitken[16] and has expressed admiration for General Franco and General Pinochet[17].

...
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
All is made clear. :rofl:

Certainly, anti-Semitism, can pop up anywhere. However, Paul Johnson is most famous for being anti-Left.

So without reading you're dismissing it?

Is he not on your list of approved writers or is character assassination your latest debating tool?
 
ramonmercado said:
Heres the chapter on Ted Grant / Militant by Denis Tourish:

This is an expanded (1800 extra words) version of the Chapter on the CWI in :

On the Edge: Political Cults of the Left and Right
Sharpe/New York 2000
By Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth

It was cut from the published version due to space reasons.

Chapter Six

The Lonely Passion Of Ted Grant

The year is 1933. Fascism has triumphed in Italy, and Hitler has just come to power in Germany. Tension is rising in Spain and Portugal, where fascist parties have their eyes set on further victories. Already, some voices can be heard predicting that a new world war is inevitable. Millions of German Jews still go about their daily business, unaware of the fate that awaits them.

Half a world away, in South Africa, a small group of Trotskyists, including a youthful Ted Grant, has concluded that capitalism cannot hope to survive the combined calamities of depression, fascism, and imminent world war. They fervently believe that, from the flames of conflict, a new world order will be born. But success is only possible, they reason, if a mass revolutionary party based on the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky can be built.

Grant and his associates are convinced that they are destined to become such a party. This daunting ambition is summed up in the name which they select for themselves - the Workers International League (WIL). All they need is a more receptive climate for their ceaseless work of agitation, propaganda and organisation. Where will they go, and what will they do?


Now, fast forward to Britain in late 1991. The Workers International League, in its entirety, had emigrated there in the mid-1930s. Ted Grant is now in his late seventies, shabbily dressed, except when addressing public meetings, and constantly immersed in the latest edition of The Financial Times. It has been a life long addiction: there is probably no one on the planet who has studied its distinctive pink pages with as much devotion as this man, whose main goal in life is the overthrow of the system the newspaper is pledged to defend. Decades on, Grant’s faith in ‘the revolution’ is undimmed. For over sixty years he has sat in dingy offices in London, and plotted, and planned, and hoped and waited. People who encounter him after an interval of many years all come away with the same observation: ‘He is just the same as always!’ If the dialectic is the philosophy of contradiction and change, Ted Grant is to all outward appearances its living refutation. His world outlook is essentially the same today as it was in 1928. He has spent the last seventy years sealed inside the cloistered world of Trotskyist politics. But, as the new year dawns, he faces expulsion from the organisation he himself founded so many decades earlier. As his life winds to a close, it will be necessary to start all over again.

For the most part it has been a lonely life. Briefly, in the 1940s, Grant helped lead a unified Trotskyist organisation (the Revolutionary Communist Party) which, at its peak, claimed 500 members. In the 1950s, Grant’s coterie shrank to a few dozen people. Then, in the 1980s, the number of his supporters soared, amazingly, to around 8000. By this stage the WIL had transmuted into the Militant Tendency - or, in its international variant, the Committee for a Workers International (CWI). Its members joined the Labour Party, hoping to obtain an influence there which they knew they could never achieve under their own banner. In this guise, it had won a majority within the Labour Party’s official youth section, the Young Socialists - its major source of recruits in the heady days of the 1970s and 1980s.

Inevitably, as the prospect of revolution receded and fractiousness reasserted itself, this reduced itself back to its original state of a few dozen members. Grant had always resembled a down at heel teacher in one of the poorer British colleges of further education, rather than a leader of the world revolution. Even his greatest admirers never pretended that he was over endowed with charisma. How had this most unlikely of gurus managed to build a relatively formidable force, even if only for a short period of time?

This is the story of one man’s obsession with the dream of revolution. In the case of Ted Grant there were never any other distractions. From the age of fifteen Trotskyism has been the only passion in a long life dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism. Like their mentor, Grant’s supporters lived in an intense private world where their only intellectual nourishment came from the collected works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky - and Ted Grant. The saga of the CWI’s rise and fall demonstrates the impasse that awaits high activity groups unable to distinguish between their dreams and reality.


For much more fun and games, go to: Grant

i always like dthe way that the liverpool miltants had a creche facility at one point called "tiny trots", not much to do with anything but still makes me laugh.
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

ramonmercado said:
Was he pushing anti-semitism when he was a "marxist"?

As I recall it was the same anti-Jewish and anti-British pitch.

Just because someone calls themselves marxist/socialist doesnt mean its true. You dont have to get a quality cert from anyone.

No, but I seem to recall that both Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lasalle pushed a lot of anti-Semitic views on their own.
 
Wasn't Karl Marx Jewish? (which isn't to say there's no such thing as an anti-Semitic Jew... but...)
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

OldTimeRadio said:
ramonmercado said:
Was he pushing anti-semitism when he was a "marxist"?

As I recall it was the same anti-Jewish and anti-British pitch.

Just because someone calls themselves marxist/socialist doesnt mean its true. You dont have to get a quality cert from anyone.

No, but I seem to recall that both Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lasalle pushed a lot of anti-Semitic views on their own.

But was it just anti Jewish religion as distinct from anti semitism?

I hate the Roman Catholic Church as an institution but not individual catholics.

His anti British pitch is great, he think the British Royal family (with the Dutch royal family as junior partners) control the international drug trade.
 
Last edited:
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

ramonmercado said:
But was it just anti Jewish religion as distinct from anti semitism?

Is there any relevant distinction? It's not as though the holocaust would have been any less horrific had the Nazis merely objected to Jewish theology.
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

ted_bloody_maul said:
ramonmercado said:
But was it just anti Jewish religion as distinct from anti semitism?

Is there any relevant distinction? It's not as though the holocaust would have been any less horrific had the Nazis merely objected to Jewish theology.

What's that got to do with left wing philosophy ? Or are you one of those right wingers who try to pretend that Hitler was a lefty on the basis of his party name rather than the policies he carried out.
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

crunchy5 said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
ramonmercado said:
But was it just anti Jewish religion as distinct from anti semitism?

Is there any relevant distinction? It's not as though the holocaust would have been any less horrific had the Nazis merely objected to Jewish theology.

What's that got to do with left wing philosophy ? Or are you one of those right wingers who try to pretend that Hitler was a lefty on the basis of his party name rather than the policies he carried out.

I'm sure if you read the other posts on this thread rather just mine you might get an idea of the context and it'll probably make sense.
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

ted_bloody_maul said:
ramonmercado said:
But was it just anti Jewish religion as distinct from anti semitism?

Is there any relevant distinction? It's not as though the holocaust would have been any less horrific had the Nazis merely objected to Jewish theology.

But they didnt so its a hypothetical question.

Opposing religion does not mean that you support genocide.

Otherwise you'll have to see all atheists (& militant agnostics) as potential Hitler/Pol Pots.
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

ramonmercado said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
ramonmercado said:
But was it just anti Jewish religion as distinct from anti semitism?

Is there any relevant distinction? It's not as though the holocaust would have been any less horrific had the Nazis merely objected to Jewish theology.

But they didnt so its a hypothetical question.

Opposing religion does not mean that you support genocide.

Otherwise you'll have to see all atheists (& militant agnostics) as potential Hitler/Pol Pots.

It's not a hypothetical question. It's a question that people seem willing to distort to avoid answering. The question is whether or not there is anything in Marxism which neccessarily precludes the possibility of anti-semitism. Given that Marx himself expressed sentiments that one might consider anti-semitic it would seem reasonable to surmise that there is not.

Clearly, I'm not suggesting that opposing religion means that you support genocide but that's neither here nor there. People have been victimised, abused, murdered and even been the victims of genocide due to their religion. You could make a similar argument that you can vote for the BNP but not agree with the thinking behind the holocaust though few would believe that you weren't a racist. Whilst I agree that you shouldn't assume that an atheist will be a genocidal dictator based on the examples of Hitler and Pol Pot it would be equally as wrong to assume they're not capable of the same atrocities given their beliefs. It's the depth of feeling and not the nuances to it which make the thinking dangerous.
 
The hypothetical part I was refering to was regarding whether the nazis would have organized the holocaust if they had only objected to jewish theology. that is hypothetical, because they didnt just object to jewish theology. perhaps there is a parallell universe where such things happened, but in this one it would only be a philosophical discussion.

I dont really think Marx was anti-semitic. Hell, I say outrageous things about Catholicism as an orgasnisation but I dont hate Catholics. I've defended Catholics when their Church was under siege in Harryville (as did the Grandmaster of the Orange Order) and the Catholic schoolkids in North Belfast (also supported by the then Tory shadow NI Sec, he marched with the parents and kids).

I dont believe Marx ever burned any Synagogues down or incited pogroms.
 
ramonmercado said:
The hypothetical part I was refering to was regarding whether the nazis would have organized the holocaust if they had only objected to jewish theology. that is hypothetical, because they didnt just object to jewish theology. perhaps there is a parallell universe where such things happened, but in this one it would only be a philosophical discussion.

I dont really think Marx was anti-semitic. Hell, I say outrageous things about Catholicism as an orgasnisation but I dont hate Catholics. I've defended Catholics when their Church was under siege in Harryville (as did the Grandmaster of the Orange Order) and the Catholic schoolkids in North Belfast (also supported by the then Tory shadow NI Sec, he marched with the parents and kids).

I dont believe Marx ever burned any Synagogues down or incited pogroms.

No but his simple philosophy was based on deconstructing economic systems. It stands to reason that if you accept his ideas about the way the systems work then it's entirely possible to transpose anti-semitic feelings, theologically or ethnically derived, very easily onto Marx's work. That seems especially clear given his remarks about "hucksterism". You might argue that it's not pure Marxism but then there probably is no such thing given the limitations of the time in which he wrote regarding the various issues faced after that time. It's a hybrid-theory in much the same way as some modern Islamism draws on western cultural and political theory outwith its original reference points whilst maintaining principles in apparent contradiction to the principles of these new sources.

Whilst it's true to say that Marx might not have incited pogroms or burned down synagogues it's also true to say that Christ has never advocated slavery, bloodshed or harbouring sex criminals. It has, however, been done by his followers and irrespective of how much they may have bastardised his teachings they would still be considered Christians.
 
No but his simple philosophy was based on deconstructing economic systems.

some would say it is not so simple. But like Marx, I myself am not a Marxist.

It stands to reason that if you accept his ideas about the way the systems work then it's entirely possible to transpose anti-semitic feelings, theologically or ethnically derived, very easily onto Marx's work.

In your opinion perhaps. I would like to see examples of Marxist leaders who did such things.


That seems especially clear given his remarks about "hucksterism".

That could also be seen as a criticism of the fact that in his perception, in his times, too large a proportion of his ex co-religionists were carrying out an economic calling which in his opinion left something to be desired.

You might argue that it's not pure Marxism but then there probably is no such thing given the limitations of the time in which he wrote regarding the various issues faced after that time. It's a hybrid-theory in much the same way as some modern Islamism draws on western cultural and political theory outwith its original reference points whilst maintaining principles in apparent contradiction to the principles of these new sources.

An interesting extension of the debate but I fear you will have to find true Marxists to take it up.

Whilst it's true to say that Marx might not have incited pogroms or burned down synagogues it's also true to say that Christ has never advocated slavery, bloodshed or harbouring sex criminals. It has, however, been done by his followers and irrespective of how much they may have bastardised his teachings they would still be considered Christians.

Indeed and pointing that out on this board can result in you being virtually burnt at the stake!

Did any of Marxs followers ever carry out pogroms? Even under Stalin, while there was discrimination, people were not killed for being jews. Only in Stalins dying days did he think up the Jewish doctors plot. And then he died. Hmmm.

Not sure if Synagogues were burned under Stalin, but Orthodox and Catholic churchs were certainly put to other uses. Same probably happened to Synagogues.

Funnily enough, Trotsky was in charge of putting down religion up till 1925.
 
ramonmercado said:
In your opinion perhaps. I would like to see examples of Marxist leaders who did such things.

Well this is the crux of it. One could argue that La Rouche, whilst not a leader of a Marxist movement or a Marxist state, represented a strand of Marxism, no matter how distant from the mainstream of that doctrine. If we say that he can't be a Marxist because he was an anti-semite then we'd have to say that the Pope who overlooks child abuse isn't a Roman Catholic, that a Baptist preacher who has extra-marital affairs isn't a Christian or an Imam who preaches violence is not a Muslim. Rather than say they weren't these things we'd hold them up as evidence of the hypocrisy, fallibility and fraud of their faiths.

I generally find that if somebody describes themselves as being of a particular faith, doctrine or belief system then they are. Quite how strictly they adhere to it is a secondary consideration because, unless they are not of sound mind, clearly the consider their beliefs to be consistent with the doctrine they profess to follow. One could argue that La Rouche is not in control of his faculties although I think that would be a dangerous mistake not to mention letting La Rouche off the hook somewhat.

Just out of curiousity which leaders, who would be in the position to carry out such persecution, would you say could be described as truly Marxist (it all seems a little "People's Front of Judea" to an outsider at times :lol: ).
 
elvissa said:
Wasn't Karl Marx Jewish? (which isn't to say there's no such thing as an anti-Semitic Jew... but...)

Marx was born a Christian of Jewish ancestry (his father was a convert). But Lassalle was also Jewish.

But that didn't stop either one of them from trying to out-anti-Semite each other. Some historians view Lassalle as the spiritual father of the Third Reich, even though he was a self-described Communist.
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

ted_bloody_maul said:
....Marx himself expressed sentiments that one might consider anti-semitic....

Back during the 1960s there was an edition of Marx' anti-Semitic writings issued under the title A WORLD WITHOUT JEWS.
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

OldTimeRadio said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
....Marx himself expressed sentiments that one might consider anti-semitic....

Back during the 1960s there was an edition of Marx' anti-Semitic writings issued under the title A WORLD WITHOUT JEWS.
Tha would make a nice companion piece to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then.
 
Re: The strange, strange death of Jeremiah Duggan (neo nazis

Pietro_Mercurios said:
Tha would make a nice companion piece to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then.

The only nice companion for the PROTOCOLS is a trash bin or better yet an incinerator.
 
Back
Top