I read it. Badly written violent imagery, like rows of people hanging from lamp posts, and that’s presented as righteous. People who are drawn to this have deep problems.
It was written to reaffirm the beliefs and convictions of white supremacists who are already committed to the “cause.” To that end, it plays upon the fantasies they wish to enact on others, while simultaneously keeping things vague (we don’t know what this post-nuclear apocalypse Aryan society looks like, how it functions, the quality of life, etc.) to prevent believers from developing questions about what comes after.
I mean, it’s typical with most revolutionary ideologies. Communists also avoid talking about how anything will actually, concretely, specifically work after their revolution. For the same reason - to prevent believers from asking uncomfortable questions
Comparing a revolutionary ideology aiming to give back control of the land and resources to the commons with one fantasising of a genocide is fantastic.
Communist can have very noble goals on paper, and communist art is usually much better (andor, disco elysium) than fascist art, and communism still suffers (or maybe manipulatively enjoys) not being able to describe the end goal in detail. These 3 things can all be true simultaneously.
Calling Andor communist art is silly but it is basically confirmed that large sections of the show (particularly the Aldanhi heist) are inspired by real life Bolshevik actions. In fact I part of Cassian Andors character inspiration comes from Joseph Stalin (where he is contrasted with Nemek in that same arc, who I believe was inspired by Trotsky)
Did Tony Gilroy explicitly say that those characters were modeled off Stalin and Trotsky? The show is about revolutionary struggle against an occupying, evil empire because that’s the crux of the IP it’s based on. But to say that a piece of media funded and produced by a mega corporation like Disney, is communist art, is hilarious.
I didn’t see the show but when a writer says something was inspired by something that doesn’t mean they’re adding any sort of value judgment.
Maybe inspired gets too loosely. I don’t think when most writers say something inspired them they mean that it filled them with fervor for a cause and then the ink began to flow. That would meet the literal definition but I think it is a lot more that if you’re writing a show about a revolution you would probably research revolutions. Maybe you see that it is common for poverty to be on the rise so you adopt that into the show.
Again, haven’t seen the show so I have no idea where it falls on the “inspired” scale. Just adding something I’ve thought about before in case the perspective helps.
Every “revolutionary communist,” I’ve ever met was just fantasizing about genocidal levels of violence.
And they all justified it by pretending that they were advocating for “workers,” instead of just fantasizing about a world where they get to watch their landlord get executed.
Nah. I know a ton. And they say shit like “execute every landlord,” all the time lmfao.
Unless you assume that “the revolution,” is an instantaneous mind shift among almost the entire population there is no possible way to achieve the goals of the revolution without large scale violence.
Lets say that tomorrow a truly communist party comes in power in a major capitalist country with a large majority. They hold a referendum to abolish private land ownership and 70% say yes. Do you think that majority of private landlords would agree to have their land nationalised solely through the power of democracy?
Many communists assume not, thus that would spark violence.
Yeah, if you claim that the violence is justified that’s one thing.
It’s really weird that even your example acknowledges that you’re going to need to either kill or violently oppress whole swathes of the population to successfully implement even a peaceful revolution, but it’s nice to see you coming around to agree.
I was a revolutionary communist in college and the comment you’re responding to 100% describes myself and my circle of friends at the time. We just wouldn’t say the quiet part out loud in public.
I mean, yes. If two ideologies are similar in that they want some big R Revolution, after which there will finally be ideal society, but they both can’t describe their ideal societies in detail - I think it’s interesting to point that out. Even if those ideologies have different goals. Sorry for hurting your religious feelings though comrade
Communist ideology at its core teaches that the wide disparity in quality of human existence is only a result of artificial systems of power than we, humans, can control, and ultimately tweaks in the system can produce better outcomes for larger number of people. I struggle to see how anyone can argue this is a negative. As an ideology, communism has brought out the worst in some societies, but it has also massively improved the working conditions and labour rights for everyone, considering that all earnings we have in that regard largely came as a compromise from capital owners who were afraid not to see their countries turn communist.
White supremacy at its core teaches that only one group of people - those who are white, is superior and worthy of ruling. It doesnt look to improve anybody but white peoples lives and actually is looking to make a lot of other people's lives not just worse but miserable.
All due respect but these two are not the two faces of the same coin and I'm dying on that hill. 😂
Thanks. I have a mostly good life, that’s why I’m not an adherent any apocalyptic theory that prophesizes the final big revolution/rupture to make things right!
Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner for absolute tool of the year.
Edit: and what a surprise - coming from a climate denier. This is deeply unserious. Read a book that is not Think and Grow Rich and come back to reflect.
Communist revolutions invariably lead to mass, indiscriminate murder. It's really not that much of a stretch. Both are violent fantasies cooked up by bitter people with little imagination, the fact that white supremacists are too dumb to even fashion a half-assed moral justification like the communists doesn't harm the analogy.
Communism is a scientific theory, it's not a "violent fantasy" and nowhere near as bad as whatever white supremacists want lol. You conflating communism and fascism is just downplaying fascism.
You realise fascists see themselves in the exact same way? They think they’re giving back control of the land and resources to the common people of the nation, by expelling the foreign elites who hoard all the wealth and control everything behind the scenes.
Fascism is defined by authoritarianism under a supreme leader/dictator - it has nothing to do with helping the common people. It's practically the opposite of communism which, on paper, is about everyone getting what they need (and no more).
Communism also always has a supreme leader/dictator in practice. It’s pointless arguing based on how things should be on paper if it literally never turns out that way in real life.
Extremely long, unreadable treatises on the mechanics of of life after the Revolution is the favorite activity of communists, wtf are you talking about
IDK, I'm not an academic. What I'm talking about is how the one trillion factons of leftism theoretically have same goal yet fucking hate each other because of differences in a hypothetical future. Maybe it's only internet people who write fantasies about utopia
I mean, from what I heard, Marx always criticized any descriptions of ideal society, calling them “utopian socialism”. So I was surprised to hear that descriptions of such societies are common. Are they common?
I mean yeah, communism is a theory applied to each individual situation differently, we have no idea what communism after socialism would look like, I'm not sure why that's weird.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Nazi Germany did indeed exist and so did marxist-leninist countries like the USSR and Maoism from the People's Republic of China. Evil or good or whatever a person feels about those countries they did lay out and enact specific plans and goals for their agenda that people today can still read and theorize about
Well the pre-requisites for communism (which Karl Marx viewed as a hypothetical future society that would be stateless and come after socialism) were there to be a strong industrial base to produce a surplus of goods, and a large educated workforce to actually take over the administration of industry and labor did not exist in the Soviet Union or China or any other country that became "communist". So in a way its literally true that there is no real communist states because its literally an oxymoron for there to be a communist state. Consider for a second that all the countries we associate with communism today have zero history of democracy as we know it in the West and were also well-known in there own time for being authoritarian and backwards.
So are you going to tell me its communisms fault that China and Russia, notorious for massive famines and civil wars and state oppression are what would happen to somewhere like the United States or Germany if people who read Karl Marx suddenly got elected and took over? Because to me, the story looks more like bloodthirsty revolutionaries co-opted the pro-labor theme of communism to manipulate a mass movement to put themselves into the seat of power and then continued to essentially be little different from the previous regimes bloodthirsty oppressive nature.
You do not understand that argument at all, not only is that not what the argument by critics of China and the USSR is, but China and the Soviet Union never even claimed to be Communist in the first place.
Lenin also described the Soviet Union as Capitalist. I can get the quote if you don't believe me.
There's no point arguing with that nitwit. They clearly are under the impression they already know everything they need to know and are "completely under control" in a neat little mind prison where no contradictions ever exist and all outside information is to be disregarded as some kind of manipulation tactic by nefarious "others"
Guys, commies have been pushing bullshit on the internet for literal decades nonstop, and before that through other mediums. I’ve heard all this before from people way smarter and way more persuasive than you.
Yeah, and all of those countries either collapsed or were shitholes for several decades until those who were children when the revolution happened took power
Communists avoid specifics because we cannot know specifics, and what specifics we can know are known by every Communist worth calling himself that. Did you expect the men who looked to overthrow the feudalist monarchies to have a full politico-economic plan generalisable to every feudal kingdom both currently existent and possible to exist in the future? Obviously fucking not, because the path to capitalism would be different for every single such society. This is no different for Communism.
Not a single party proclaimed itself to be “The Capitalist Party” truing to achieve some ideas of True Final Capitalism. They just wanted the king and his knights/landlords to fuck off. They had much more modest goals, so requirements for them is lower. But if you want to build some kind of all-encompassing totalitarian utopia, you better be good on specifics.
No party is proclaiming itself to be "The Communist Party" which achieves some True Final Communism. Communism is the natural order of things, and the Communist Party exists wholly and entirely to make this fact known among the proletariat and to bring forth this inevitability.
Yeah, no party ever named itself Communist Party and tried to achieve communism. This and other amazing political science knowledge from TheCanadianFurry cultist
Shifting the goalpost from "achieving Final True Communism" to "doing any kind of praxis" is neo-nazi argumentative behaviour. "The fascist does not believe in words" etc.
It's real trash meant to radicalize people, right up there with ISIS recruitment (and beheadings) videos, cult propaganda, and like a more distilled and concentrated dose of uhh, Fox News, OAN, etc. Learn about it obliquely but this study and any sharing of it should be done like you would with smallpox. That's not the best metaphor, since smallpox is eradicated "in the wild" but the Turner Diaries is not.
I'd recommend someone to listen through a few episodes of the "Weird little guys" podcast before really engaging in any way with this text. It's really only noteworthy for the rogues' gallery of terrorists who were inspired by it.
I attempted to read it once to see if it's shed any light on how they think. It does not and made me physically ill to read. Never had that happen from a book before.
That last chapter was so whacked out is almost read like dark comedy. "Almost" because the quality of the writing made it almost unreadable. I read it almost two decades ago but I still remember it.
These guys somehow obliterate China with nukes without getting obliterated in turn, and then conduct a successful land invasion and total genocide of every other non-white nation and continent on Earth. At some point they nuke their own cities like NYC because there are too many Jews. White people in the USA live in gated survivalist communities to protect them from the cannibal blacks and white people are only granted entry if they bring the head of a non-white person. And somehow these guys then build a utopia on a white planet where all non-white people have been killed.
Even the guy who wrote it admits it was badly written. There was an interview with him after it came out that McVeigh was partially inspired by it to blow up the Alfred Murray fed bldg, and his comment was something like, "if I knew that book was going to become this big a deal I would've actually put in the effort to write it well"
The purges aren’t the important part in the book. Pierce was completely indifferent to whether us non-Whites lived or died so long as his cause prevailed so he didn’t bother with detailed writing on that matter.The domestic issues the Organizationand their opponents are seizing upon are what Pierce wanted to highlight
You misunderstand.Not excusing Pierce,just explaining how what you thought was bad writing is actually a good insight into his mindset.He doesn’t feel hate-he felt NOTHING. Remember it was White “race traitors” who were hung.
They were hung FIRST. First they came for the communists etc. You seem to have a deeper read on it than me I guess, I could stomach the stupid racist bullshit enough to get through it and try to understand it but the atrocious writing made it extremely hard for me to finish reading that book. If the read is that his shitty writing means he was an empty minded moron, we can agree on that.
Sorry for being hostile, you kind of remind me of my cool and well intentioned boomer aunt with your syntax.
i read the plot description once and was kind of confused by it
like ik that racists like to fantasize about doing violence on ethnic groups they dont like but thats like all the book is…like even when they make their whites only utopia its still wildly more violent and disturbing than the actual society we live in today
it doesnt make a great case for its point i guess is what im saying
Fascist ideology demands a scapegoat for all of societal ills and exterminate them. The problem with that ideology is that once you exterminate them, society will still be shitty. And the only way to keep the con going is to pick another minority and exterminate them.
Everyone says this but are there any examples of it actually happening in history? Fascism never got a chance to fully exterminate its original enemies, how can we know what would’ve happened after if they’d succeeded
Fascism never got a chance to fully exterminate its original enemies,
I mean Nazi Germany did. The disabled were the first targets and the ones most roundly executed. The Jehovah witnesses were basically wiped out in Europe. Jews survived as did some Romani but it they had like a 95% kill rate of Jews and Romani they had control over. It was only a few lucky enough the flee and hide that survived direct nazi occupation.
Those people were all targets from the start. What I’m saying is that at no point did fascists just start making up new categories of enemies on the fly because they’d run out of people to kill
Im not saying it wasn’t real fascism, I’m saying that there’s no way to know what they would have done once their original goals had been achieved. The idea that they would have created new enemies as an excuse to continue killing people is just baseless speculation
What I need people to understand is there’s roughly 2 types of Nazis. The actual racists, and the misanthropic sadists who really just want an excuse to fantasize about and commit violence and gravitate to nazism because it gives them a wide range of targets deemed acceptable.
That's kinda the whole thing about fascism. There ALWAYS needs to be enemies to fight, so once the "easy" enemies are all gone, they turn on their own.
I found this listed on Goodreads once (it has since been removed). The page was full of positive user reviews, all saying something along the lines of "YoU DON't undERsTand tHis bOOk, it's nOt Racist!"
It is quite literally a book that ends with the complete extermination of all non-"Aryans". That could be interpreted as a tiny bit racist.
You really want to give the government unlimited power to imprison people for books? They won't JUST pick the Nazi books. There are probably a dozen governments in power and two dozen more major political parties that would ban the Koran, any books about LGBT, any book considered "socialist" etc.
Oh, I know. Just making a silly juxtaposition among seemingly innocent works of fiction and those that are, and I hope I'm not being too unfair, just a step (a page, you might say) above the "Mein Kampf".
I wrote most of this article. While it’s obviously not high art I think people tend to overstate how badly written the book is. It has an appeal in that it has a very straightforward flow and is well paced, it is an interesting read and I never lost interest in it when it was reading, despite how morally abhorrent it is. There are parts where I can understand how this would appeal to people who agree with the author. There is literally 0 characterization though, you can very clearly tell that the author is a physics guy rather than a social sciences guy. It is written for people who already agree with this ideology. It is not to convince anyone.
Pierce was deliberately targeting a non-intellectual audience (vs his previous works which were aimed at more intellectual racists who read nonfiction, e.g. the NSW or a lot of the stuff he wrote in Attack!). The book is good at what it is trying to do, which is inspire racists, so I feel like saying “ohhhh it’s a badly written book” and not thinking about what the book is FOR is kind of shooting ourselves in the foot when trying to understand its impact
Well, Pierce had a PhD in physics, and several of his acolytes were themselves pretty smart, so it’s not always about IQ. There are other things that drive people to this.
Says a lot about Fascism that the best “utopia” it’s believers can envision within one of the most infamous books written by them (which is Fictional, therefore they could’ve written literally any scenarios they had on killing others Without screwing themselves over!) is a post-apocalyptic, nuclear hellscape that forces the remaining population to reside within overcrowded bunkers…
Monthly reminder that fanatical Christian fundamentalists and Neo-Nazis tried to overthrow Ronald Reagan for not being the quasi-fascist they expected him to be as president. The infamous "Fourteen Words" were coined by a member of The Order, a militant Neo-Nazi paramilitary that was inspired to rise up against Reagan by the novel.
The author appeared on Coast to Coast AM, basically the Joe Rogan of the late 20th century. The relationship between hatred & conspiracy theories has always been intertwined.
This is featured heavily in the book The Lost Cause by Cory Doctorow as something one of the antagonist groups idolize. Really great book(the Doctorow one, doubt I will ever read The Turner Diaries), highly recommend it and his other book I have read, Walkaways.
The 2099 epilogue summarizes how, following the success of Turner's mission, the Organization went on to conquer the rest of the world and how all non-white races of people were murdered.
Which indicates that extremist right wingers don't just want non-Whites in their own countries. They want them killed so they can take over the entire planet.
I've heard a theory that this book, and others of it's ilk, have been involved in a large number of mass shootings (mass killings in general) in the United States.
There's a whole slew of right-wing hate books and pamphlets that get around at gun shows and other venues.
It wouldn't surprise me if this type of book is step 1 to radicalization.
I'm not advocating banning the book or anything, but we would be well served to teach media literacy and how to recognize propaganda in schools.
If anything in this “genre” is step 1 to radicalization, it’s The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mein Kampf was practically fanfic about it. Once you understand that a lot of white supremacists think The Protocols was a fully true intercept of conspiratorial forces and not an easily-debunked hoax designed to make anti-semitism easier, a lot of stuff starts clicking into place.
Couldn’t agree more about the media literacy part of this. I did an elective in college that was purely about critically reading those books, the Turner Diaries, and a few other well-known “hate group” texts. It prepared me for where society and the Internet both currently are in a way that is frequently chilling, although I am very glad I did it.
A family friend gave me a copy of this book when I was like 14 I read it and was a little off put by it. I remember the copy I had only had the title and a paragraph saying that the FBI and the government wanted the book banned on the cover with no cover image
This book still shouldn’t be banned. Mein kampf and Protocols of Zion shouldn’t be banned either. No book should be banned. If you are mature enough to not get radicalized by century old books, these pieces of literature are very valuable in understanding the time of the day and how hatred and racism took form.
Unlike a lot of books that have faced bans, it is not a valuable contribution to literature. Even if you somehow ignore the abhorrent content, it's a terribly written book. I skimmed a pdf copy I downloaded once when it was in the news and it reads like a fourteen year old's first attempt at fiction.
No I just have critical thinking skills and can read a book without wanting to kill someome. There’s not a single book on this earth that should be banned.
I apologize you don’t seem to have those same critical thinking skills.
It isn’t as much about the genocide(because non-Whites don’t matter to Pierce)as it is about the process of breakdown of “containment” by the bipartisan consensus of the Left and Right bases that could lead to revolution.We can only hope that the breakdown occurring now is taken advantage of by kinder Left and Right wingers than in this book.
I read it. Badly written violent imagery, like rows of people hanging from lamp posts, and that’s presented as righteous. People who are drawn to this have deep problems.
It was written to reaffirm the beliefs and convictions of white supremacists who are already committed to the “cause.” To that end, it plays upon the fantasies they wish to enact on others, while simultaneously keeping things vague (we don’t know what this post-nuclear apocalypse Aryan society looks like, how it functions, the quality of life, etc.) to prevent believers from developing questions about what comes after.
Normal people would consider it a dystopian novel.
A badly written dystopian novel. I read it in the 90s and got 3/4 of the way by forcing myself to get that far.
I mean, it’s typical with most revolutionary ideologies. Communists also avoid talking about how anything will actually, concretely, specifically work after their revolution. For the same reason - to prevent believers from asking uncomfortable questions
As they say: It's easier to blow up the trains than make them run on time.
Comparing a revolutionary ideology aiming to give back control of the land and resources to the commons with one fantasising of a genocide is fantastic.
communist art also tends to be MUCH better than fascist art
Communist can have very noble goals on paper, and communist art is usually much better (andor, disco elysium) than fascist art, and communism still suffers (or maybe manipulatively enjoys) not being able to describe the end goal in detail. These 3 things can all be true simultaneously.
Andor is communist art? lol
Calling Andor communist art is silly but it is basically confirmed that large sections of the show (particularly the Aldanhi heist) are inspired by real life Bolshevik actions. In fact I part of Cassian Andors character inspiration comes from Joseph Stalin (where he is contrasted with Nemek in that same arc, who I believe was inspired by Trotsky)
Did Tony Gilroy explicitly say that those characters were modeled off Stalin and Trotsky? The show is about revolutionary struggle against an occupying, evil empire because that’s the crux of the IP it’s based on. But to say that a piece of media funded and produced by a mega corporation like Disney, is communist art, is hilarious.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20250417-how-a-young-joseph-stalin-inspired-star-wars-series-andor
The Aldhani heist is heavily inspired off the Tblisi bank heist.
I didn’t see the show but when a writer says something was inspired by something that doesn’t mean they’re adding any sort of value judgment.
Maybe inspired gets too loosely. I don’t think when most writers say something inspired them they mean that it filled them with fervor for a cause and then the ink began to flow. That would meet the literal definition but I think it is a lot more that if you’re writing a show about a revolution you would probably research revolutions. Maybe you see that it is common for poverty to be on the rise so you adopt that into the show.
Again, haven’t seen the show so I have no idea where it falls on the “inspired” scale. Just adding something I’ve thought about before in case the perspective helps.
Lol calling Andor communist is pretty rich to be honest. Anti-authoritarian sure.
How fucking dumb are you when there’s a BBC article linked describing all the links to young Stalin? I guess to put it in terms you’d understand
“Acting like you know anything when you’re dumb as fuck. lol.”
[deleted]
You’ve clearly never seen the profilo continuo
since when have they ever actually done that lol
Every “revolutionary communist,” I’ve ever met was just fantasizing about genocidal levels of violence.
And they all justified it by pretending that they were advocating for “workers,” instead of just fantasizing about a world where they get to watch their landlord get executed.
You either haven’t met or haven’t listened to many revolutionary communists then because I don’t hear those things in my circles that feature many
Nah. I know a ton. And they say shit like “execute every landlord,” all the time lmfao.
Unless you assume that “the revolution,” is an instantaneous mind shift among almost the entire population there is no possible way to achieve the goals of the revolution without large scale violence.
I get you but there's another angle to it too.
Lets say that tomorrow a truly communist party comes in power in a major capitalist country with a large majority. They hold a referendum to abolish private land ownership and 70% say yes. Do you think that majority of private landlords would agree to have their land nationalised solely through the power of democracy?
Many communists assume not, thus that would spark violence.
Yeah, if you claim that the violence is justified that’s one thing.
It’s really weird that even your example acknowledges that you’re going to need to either kill or violently oppress whole swathes of the population to successfully implement even a peaceful revolution, but it’s nice to see you coming around to agree.
I mean we can go in circles all you want.
As you decided to entertain my example - what happens in such scenario if land owners refuse to give their land peacefully, after a democratic rule?
I mean, unless you’re a landlord, would it really be so bad?
Judging by what happens historically in communist nations... yes.
I was a revolutionary communist in college and the comment you’re responding to 100% describes myself and my circle of friends at the time. We just wouldn’t say the quiet part out loud in public.
I mean, yes. If two ideologies are similar in that they want some big R Revolution, after which there will finally be ideal society, but they both can’t describe their ideal societies in detail - I think it’s interesting to point that out. Even if those ideologies have different goals. Sorry for hurting your religious feelings though comrade
You did hurt those feelings indeed.
Here's the difference, though.
Communist ideology at its core teaches that the wide disparity in quality of human existence is only a result of artificial systems of power than we, humans, can control, and ultimately tweaks in the system can produce better outcomes for larger number of people. I struggle to see how anyone can argue this is a negative. As an ideology, communism has brought out the worst in some societies, but it has also massively improved the working conditions and labour rights for everyone, considering that all earnings we have in that regard largely came as a compromise from capital owners who were afraid not to see their countries turn communist.
White supremacy at its core teaches that only one group of people - those who are white, is superior and worthy of ruling. It doesnt look to improve anybody but white peoples lives and actually is looking to make a lot of other people's lives not just worse but miserable.
All due respect but these two are not the two faces of the same coin and I'm dying on that hill. 😂
Communism is most helpful as a threat to capital. In practice, it requires more virtue than any society as ever harbored.
Not reading all that lol
It's my fault for overestimating your capacity after you've clearly demonstrated it with your initial analysis. 😂😂
All in good spirit. Have a good life.
Thanks. I have a mostly good life, that’s why I’m not an adherent any apocalyptic theory that prophesizes the final big revolution/rupture to make things right!
What an embarrassing thing to admit
I love when people admit they're too lazy to read a few short paragraphs.
white supremacy hasn't killed even a tiny fraction as many people as communism has.
Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner for absolute tool of the year.
Edit: and what a surprise - coming from a climate denier. This is deeply unserious. Read a book that is not Think and Grow Rich and come back to reflect.
They both end up the same anyways, it doesn’t really matter what the intent is
Communist revolutions invariably lead to mass, indiscriminate murder. It's really not that much of a stretch. Both are violent fantasies cooked up by bitter people with little imagination, the fact that white supremacists are too dumb to even fashion a half-assed moral justification like the communists doesn't harm the analogy.
Communism is a scientific theory, it's not a "violent fantasy" and nowhere near as bad as whatever white supremacists want lol. You conflating communism and fascism is just downplaying fascism.
It is not a scientific theory, it is an ideology and a belief and it functions almost like a religion.
Communism is as scientific as Scientology and Christian Science
Ludicrous take. It's about as scientific as evangelical christianity. Its adherents behave similar to evangelicals, too.
Says the guy with a violent dictator as his avatar.
You realise fascists see themselves in the exact same way? They think they’re giving back control of the land and resources to the common people of the nation, by expelling the foreign elites who hoard all the wealth and control everything behind the scenes.
Fascism is defined by authoritarianism under a supreme leader/dictator - it has nothing to do with helping the common people. It's practically the opposite of communism which, on paper, is about everyone getting what they need (and no more).
Communism also always has a supreme leader/dictator in practice. It’s pointless arguing based on how things should be on paper if it literally never turns out that way in real life.
One openly fantasises about genocide, the other doesn't, both result in genocide when their respective polical forces come to power
Extremely long, unreadable treatises on the mechanics of of life after the Revolution is the favorite activity of communists, wtf are you talking about
What are the top 3 most famous treatises like that?
IDK, I'm not an academic. What I'm talking about is how the one trillion factons of leftism theoretically have same goal yet fucking hate each other because of differences in a hypothetical future. Maybe it's only internet people who write fantasies about utopia
Leftists hated other leftists long before the internet. It has always been why 'anti-revolutionary' forces can be so incompetent and win.
Looking for ideas for a buzzfeed article?
I mean, from what I heard, Marx always criticized any descriptions of ideal society, calling them “utopian socialism”. So I was surprised to hear that descriptions of such societies are common. Are they common?
I mean yeah, communism is a theory applied to each individual situation differently, we have no idea what communism after socialism would look like, I'm not sure why that's weird.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Nazi Germany did indeed exist and so did marxist-leninist countries like the USSR and Maoism from the People's Republic of China. Evil or good or whatever a person feels about those countries they did lay out and enact specific plans and goals for their agenda that people today can still read and theorize about
But those were “not real X and Y”. Real X and Y have never been tried, you see
Well the pre-requisites for communism (which Karl Marx viewed as a hypothetical future society that would be stateless and come after socialism) were there to be a strong industrial base to produce a surplus of goods, and a large educated workforce to actually take over the administration of industry and labor did not exist in the Soviet Union or China or any other country that became "communist". So in a way its literally true that there is no real communist states because its literally an oxymoron for there to be a communist state. Consider for a second that all the countries we associate with communism today have zero history of democracy as we know it in the West and were also well-known in there own time for being authoritarian and backwards.
So are you going to tell me its communisms fault that China and Russia, notorious for massive famines and civil wars and state oppression are what would happen to somewhere like the United States or Germany if people who read Karl Marx suddenly got elected and took over? Because to me, the story looks more like bloodthirsty revolutionaries co-opted the pro-labor theme of communism to manipulate a mass movement to put themselves into the seat of power and then continued to essentially be little different from the previous regimes bloodthirsty oppressive nature.
I’m not reading this, comrade
You do not understand that argument at all, not only is that not what the argument by critics of China and the USSR is, but China and the Soviet Union never even claimed to be Communist in the first place.
Lenin also described the Soviet Union as Capitalist. I can get the quote if you don't believe me.
I don’t care
Yeah I can guess, that's why you say stupid things.
There's no point arguing with that nitwit. They clearly are under the impression they already know everything they need to know and are "completely under control" in a neat little mind prison where no contradictions ever exist and all outside information is to be disregarded as some kind of manipulation tactic by nefarious "others"
Guys, commies have been pushing bullshit on the internet for literal decades nonstop, and before that through other mediums. I’ve heard all this before from people way smarter and way more persuasive than you.
Yeah, and all of those countries either collapsed or were shitholes for several decades until those who were children when the revolution happened took power
bro never heard of Lenin
The fuck are you talking about? This is what not reading does to a mf huh?
Communists avoid specifics because we cannot know specifics, and what specifics we can know are known by every Communist worth calling himself that. Did you expect the men who looked to overthrow the feudalist monarchies to have a full politico-economic plan generalisable to every feudal kingdom both currently existent and possible to exist in the future? Obviously fucking not, because the path to capitalism would be different for every single such society. This is no different for Communism.
Not a single party proclaimed itself to be “The Capitalist Party” truing to achieve some ideas of True Final Capitalism. They just wanted the king and his knights/landlords to fuck off. They had much more modest goals, so requirements for them is lower. But if you want to build some kind of all-encompassing totalitarian utopia, you better be good on specifics.
No party is proclaiming itself to be "The Communist Party" which achieves some True Final Communism. Communism is the natural order of things, and the Communist Party exists wholly and entirely to make this fact known among the proletariat and to bring forth this inevitability.
Yeah, no party ever named itself Communist Party and tried to achieve communism. This and other amazing political science knowledge from TheCanadianFurry cultist
Shifting the goalpost from "achieving Final True Communism" to "doing any kind of praxis" is neo-nazi argumentative behaviour. "The fascist does not believe in words" etc.
Comrade, get help
Of all the things to be obsessed with… thinking we are in some kind of zero sum war with people diffeeent than us…
It also gives enough detail to conduct a terrorist attack. Pages of it keep being found at the sites of White Power Terrorist attacks.
Yeah, I tried reading the first couple chapters. Pierce was just a really shitty writer.
To be fair, ‘most talented neo-Nazi writer’ is presumably a very low bar to clear so this is probably the best written book of the genre.
Strange that Nazis are bad at an art form requiring open-mindedness, creativity, and empathy above all else
It's real trash meant to radicalize people, right up there with ISIS recruitment (and beheadings) videos, cult propaganda, and like a more distilled and concentrated dose of uhh, Fox News, OAN, etc. Learn about it obliquely but this study and any sharing of it should be done like you would with smallpox. That's not the best metaphor, since smallpox is eradicated "in the wild" but the Turner Diaries is not.
I'd recommend someone to listen through a few episodes of the "Weird little guys" podcast before really engaging in any way with this text. It's really only noteworthy for the rogues' gallery of terrorists who were inspired by it.
It tracks with maga rappers and pureflix movies, though. No need to swing for the bleachers when your target audience is in the gutter.
Oh, it’s about white supremacists starting a nuclear race war as like, a positive thing?
I attempted to read it once to see if it's shed any light on how they think. It does not and made me physically ill to read. Never had that happen from a book before.
That last chapter was so whacked out is almost read like dark comedy. "Almost" because the quality of the writing made it almost unreadable. I read it almost two decades ago but I still remember it.
These guys somehow obliterate China with nukes without getting obliterated in turn, and then conduct a successful land invasion and total genocide of every other non-white nation and continent on Earth. At some point they nuke their own cities like NYC because there are too many Jews. White people in the USA live in gated survivalist communities to protect them from the cannibal blacks and white people are only granted entry if they bring the head of a non-white person. And somehow these guys then build a utopia on a white planet where all non-white people have been killed.
Even the guy who wrote it admits it was badly written. There was an interview with him after it came out that McVeigh was partially inspired by it to blow up the Alfred Murray fed bldg, and his comment was something like, "if I knew that book was going to become this big a deal I would've actually put in the effort to write it well"
The purges aren’t the important part in the book. Pierce was completely indifferent to whether us non-Whites lived or died so long as his cause prevailed so he didn’t bother with detailed writing on that matter.The domestic issues the Organizationand their opponents are seizing upon are what Pierce wanted to highlight
I'm sorry, what part of "day of the rope" did you miss? Also it's very obvious you're r/asablackman right now
You misunderstand.Not excusing Pierce,just explaining how what you thought was bad writing is actually a good insight into his mindset.He doesn’t feel hate-he felt NOTHING. Remember it was White “race traitors” who were hung.
They were hung FIRST. First they came for the communists etc. You seem to have a deeper read on it than me I guess, I could stomach the stupid racist bullshit enough to get through it and try to understand it but the atrocious writing made it extremely hard for me to finish reading that book. If the read is that his shitty writing means he was an empty minded moron, we can agree on that.
Sorry for being hostile, you kind of remind me of my cool and well intentioned boomer aunt with your syntax.
No he felt plenty of hate, even for his own family. His son actually has a good article on him, he was a wifebeater and a domestic abuser.
I’ve read it too, in a way I thought it was well written, it flows very easily and keeps you reading and wanting to read the next sentence, etc.
There is a reason this book took hold and not a bunch of others, it’s a good ,easy, flowing read.
i read the plot description once and was kind of confused by it
like ik that racists like to fantasize about doing violence on ethnic groups they dont like but thats like all the book is…like even when they make their whites only utopia its still wildly more violent and disturbing than the actual society we live in today
it doesnt make a great case for its point i guess is what im saying
Fascists worship cruelty and violence it's kind of their whole thing
Fascist ideology demands a scapegoat for all of societal ills and exterminate them. The problem with that ideology is that once you exterminate them, society will still be shitty. And the only way to keep the con going is to pick another minority and exterminate them.
Everyone says this but are there any examples of it actually happening in history? Fascism never got a chance to fully exterminate its original enemies, how can we know what would’ve happened after if they’d succeeded
I mean Nazi Germany did. The disabled were the first targets and the ones most roundly executed. The Jehovah witnesses were basically wiped out in Europe. Jews survived as did some Romani but it they had like a 95% kill rate of Jews and Romani they had control over. It was only a few lucky enough the flee and hide that survived direct nazi occupation.
They had shit ton of enemies from the start.
Those people were all targets from the start. What I’m saying is that at no point did fascists just start making up new categories of enemies on the fly because they’d run out of people to kill
i will say that in this book in particular their fantasy of a fascist vision finally achieved looks like the nightmare world of any sane person
I’ve never seen the “real fascism hasn’t been achieved yet” argument before, this is a historic moment
Im not saying it wasn’t real fascism, I’m saying that there’s no way to know what they would have done once their original goals had been achieved. The idea that they would have created new enemies as an excuse to continue killing people is just baseless speculation
Pierce did not think violence was bad per se.
What I need people to understand is there’s roughly 2 types of Nazis. The actual racists, and the misanthropic sadists who really just want an excuse to fantasize about and commit violence and gravitate to nazism because it gives them a wide range of targets deemed acceptable.
He never said he wanted to create a utopia. Just that he wanted to kill all the non white people.
That's kinda the whole thing about fascism. There ALWAYS needs to be enemies to fight, so once the "easy" enemies are all gone, they turn on their own.
I found this listed on Goodreads once (it has since been removed). The page was full of positive user reviews, all saying something along the lines of "YoU DON't undERsTand tHis bOOk, it's nOt Racist!"
It is quite literally a book that ends with the complete extermination of all non-"Aryans". That could be interpreted as a tiny bit racist.
It also ends by calling Hitler the "Great One".
The whole book is about the extermination of non-Aryans. How do those people explain the Day of the Rope stuff lmao
I mean, you COULD write a book with that ending that’s not racist, if the ending is depicted as dystopian or not good.
I haven’t read the book but based on the fact that it inspired race-based killings, I’m gonna guess that wasn’t the message the author went with.
Yah the writer literally founded a neo-Nazi organization that had around 2,500 members at its peak
The classic “It’s taken out of context!”
FUCK THE TURNER DIARIES! THAT HORRIFIC BOOK SHOULD BE GROUNDS FOR IMPRISONMENT!
You really want to give the government unlimited power to imprison people for books? They won't JUST pick the Nazi books. There are probably a dozen governments in power and two dozen more major political parties that would ban the Koran, any books about LGBT, any book considered "socialist" etc.
One of these things is not like the others…
But it illustrates exactly which political parties I mean.
Patrick that’s a terrible idea
Patrick?! That dumb sea star!?
There are two kinds of "banned books" readers:
· "Handmaid's Tale", "Catcher in the Rye", ... fans.
· "The Turner Diaries", "The Camp of The Saints", ... enjoyers.
"hated by people who like hitler" vs "hated by people who hate hitler"
Oh and the Captain Underpants category. Poo Poo Pee Pee books
I may have been the driving cause for all captain underpants books being pulled from my elementary school library lmfao
There are more than that.
Huck Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird have been targeted by both sides of the aisle.
Blood Heir and A Place For Wolves were subjected to cancellation campaigns by SJWs.
The Snow Forest was withdrawn by the author after she was brigaded by the left.
Oh, I know. Just making a silly juxtaposition among seemingly innocent works of fiction and those that are, and I hope I'm not being too unfair, just a step (a page, you might say) above the "Mein Kampf".
What’s The Camp of the Saints about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints
Ah,that Fucking racist bile.
I once a few years ago started to read it but Put it away after ~20 pages both because of racism and how bad the writing is
Why and where was Catcc he r in the Rye banned?
Did anyone ban Handmaids Tale?
In some libraries in the US. Nothing at the state or federal level, though, no.
No books are banned at that level afaik. That would be unconstitutional.
I wrote most of this article. While it’s obviously not high art I think people tend to overstate how badly written the book is. It has an appeal in that it has a very straightforward flow and is well paced, it is an interesting read and I never lost interest in it when it was reading, despite how morally abhorrent it is. There are parts where I can understand how this would appeal to people who agree with the author. There is literally 0 characterization though, you can very clearly tell that the author is a physics guy rather than a social sciences guy. It is written for people who already agree with this ideology. It is not to convince anyone.
Pierce was deliberately targeting a non-intellectual audience (vs his previous works which were aimed at more intellectual racists who read nonfiction, e.g. the NSW or a lot of the stuff he wrote in Attack!). The book is good at what it is trying to do, which is inspire racists, so I feel like saying “ohhhh it’s a badly written book” and not thinking about what the book is FOR is kind of shooting ourselves in the foot when trying to understand its impact
So we should lose 30-40 iq points to understand it's appeal?
Well, Pierce had a PhD in physics, and several of his acolytes were themselves pretty smart, so it’s not always about IQ. There are other things that drive people to this.
Bad people can be intelligent.
It ends in a nuclear post apocalypse which is considered a good ending.
Says a lot about Fascism that the best “utopia” it’s believers can envision within one of the most infamous books written by them (which is Fictional, therefore they could’ve written literally any scenarios they had on killing others Without screwing themselves over!) is a post-apocalyptic, nuclear hellscape that forces the remaining population to reside within overcrowded bunkers…
Monthly reminder that fanatical Christian fundamentalists and Neo-Nazis tried to overthrow Ronald Reagan for not being the quasi-fascist they expected him to be as president. The infamous "Fourteen Words" were coined by a member of The Order, a militant Neo-Nazi paramilitary that was inspired to rise up against Reagan by the novel.
What? This is the first time I’m hearing of them trying to do that
Same thing is happening right now with Fuentes and Trump.
The author appeared on Coast to Coast AM, basically the Joe Rogan of the late 20th century. The relationship between hatred & conspiracy theories has always been intertwined.
I'd support a film adaptation of this if either 1) it was given the Starship Troopers treatment, or 2) starred Kanye West in whiteface as Earl Turner.
The film called, “The Order,” is about it (starring Jude Law).
No, it’s about The Order, which was a specific group that was inspired by them.
This is featured heavily in the book The Lost Cause by Cory Doctorow as something one of the antagonist groups idolize. Really great book(the Doctorow one, doubt I will ever read The Turner Diaries), highly recommend it and his other book I have read, Walkaways.
Which indicates that extremist right wingers don't just want non-Whites in their own countries. They want them killed so they can take over the entire planet.
Thought Slime did a video about how not only is it evil racist garbage, it’s incredibly poorly written just as a story
I never see it listed on the banned book lists in libraries and book stores.
It has to be there first so somebody can object.
and why would it be?
Most people would find it objectionable in a public school or library.
Good question. If during a police search this book was found in your home, I believe it could be cause to add another charge
In what country?
My country.
Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
Why do you believe that?
I've heard a theory that this book, and others of it's ilk, have been involved in a large number of mass shootings (mass killings in general) in the United States.
There's a whole slew of right-wing hate books and pamphlets that get around at gun shows and other venues.
It wouldn't surprise me if this type of book is step 1 to radicalization.
I'm not advocating banning the book or anything, but we would be well served to teach media literacy and how to recognize propaganda in schools.
That’s literally what this post is about
It’s not even propaganda. It’s more of a guidebook
It's not a theory it's an established fact
If anything in this “genre” is step 1 to radicalization, it’s The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mein Kampf was practically fanfic about it. Once you understand that a lot of white supremacists think The Protocols was a fully true intercept of conspiratorial forces and not an easily-debunked hoax designed to make anti-semitism easier, a lot of stuff starts clicking into place.
Couldn’t agree more about the media literacy part of this. I did an elective in college that was purely about critically reading those books, the Turner Diaries, and a few other well-known “hate group” texts. It prepared me for where society and the Internet both currently are in a way that is frequently chilling, although I am very glad I did it.
A family friend gave me a copy of this book when I was like 14 I read it and was a little off put by it. I remember the copy I had only had the title and a paragraph saying that the FBI and the government wanted the book banned on the cover with no cover image
Yikes. Where is that family friend now?
Still a Georgia redneck
White racism sigh
I simply don't buy that OKC was in any way influenced by this badly written book and it makes me skeptical of the other 200
It’s an objectively bad book.
Acting like you know something, when you really don’t know shit at all, is hilarious.
Another day, another neo-nazi post on my feed from r/Wikipedia
Jesus fucking Christ, just look at OP's profile. Half their front page is posts about nazis on this sub
What even is this?
Talking about an issue is not the same as advocating for or supporting it.
"Read banned books!" folk get really quiet when this is brought up 🤨
I don’t think it should be banned. I’ve read it. I do think if you read it and enjoy it, you should probably be on a terrorism watch list.
We need to expand watchlists.
This book still shouldn’t be banned. Mein kampf and Protocols of Zion shouldn’t be banned either. No book should be banned. If you are mature enough to not get radicalized by century old books, these pieces of literature are very valuable in understanding the time of the day and how hatred and racism took form.
You don’t know the difference between criticizing a books content and message vs banning the book.
Unlike a lot of books that have faced bans, it is not a valuable contribution to literature. Even if you somehow ignore the abhorrent content, it's a terribly written book. I skimmed a pdf copy I downloaded once when it was in the news and it reads like a fourteen year old's first attempt at fiction.
Who decides what’s a valuable contribution to literature?
Esteemed literary critics.
And if something is not a valuable contribution to literature, does that mean it’s ok to ban it?
If it’s radicalizing people then yes.
Who decides if it’s radicalizing people?
The people it radicalized.
Oh, so if you wanted to ban a book you would ask people “hey did this book radicalize you”?
We already have cases of it radicalizing people to kill.
Did you not read the very article linked?
Very smol brain perspective there.
Did you miss the title saying it caused the killings of many people?
No I just have critical thinking skills and can read a book without wanting to kill someome. There’s not a single book on this earth that should be banned.
I apologize you don’t seem to have those same critical thinking skills.
Just because you can read it without causing death and destruction doesn’t mean others can.
We need sensible book control.
Why is 50% of this sub about white supremacy? Interesting thing to notice!
Another day another post about nazis
It isn’t as much about the genocide(because non-Whites don’t matter to Pierce)as it is about the process of breakdown of “containment” by the bipartisan consensus of the Left and Right bases that could lead to revolution.We can only hope that the breakdown occurring now is taken advantage of by kinder Left and Right wingers than in this book.
[removed]
Ok bot
Remember everyone, comments like these can and should be reported for hate.
Gotta love teenage edgelords.
"anti white propaganda", huh?
*checks OP's profile, first two comments:*
Your mother raise you like this? She as much a piece of shit as you?