Should Yuri Bezminov be thought in schools

I'll take your word for it glownigger

HERE is the full video interview and lecture

youtube.com/watch?v=pzeHpf3OYQY

Attached: 1200px-Stalin-Joseph-1930.jpg (1200x1919, 266K)

In the US sure, Europistan fuck no
You fags are half the reason he was right, if you had done your jobs and kept the Soviets in their fucking lands they wouldn't have infiltrated us

Attached: milton.gif (464x352, 2.62M)

getting dragged into ww1 to give the rothschilds isreal was real useful for the european 19th century, thanks again burger

you're treating him as absolute truth. with guys like him, the truth is somewhere in the middle. not to discredit the interview entirely, just try to remain sceptical in the face of hearing what you want to hear.

No

Why not user

No. We should teach them what the actual globalists themselves have written.

youtube.com/watch?v=hz4c_k9UOeo&list=PLYmIBQRIOqKlcj21QqqR6b91UcU7Bj-Ah&index=2

youtube.com/watch?v=ro0DztS9gNw&list=PLYmIBQRIOqKlcj21QqqR6b91UcU7Bj-Ah&index=4

youtube.com/watch?v=cE6Qi4qVpxY&list=PLYmIBQRIOqKlcj21QqqR6b91UcU7Bj-Ah&index=3

youtube.com/watch?v=uN7MChaN9OM&list=PLYmIBQRIOqKlcj21QqqR6b91UcU7Bj-Ah&index=19

Attached: Tiresome.jpg (492x449, 48K)

Not, Marx, Engles, Lenin and Stalin should be taught in school. Why would anyone believe the words of a traitor on the CIA's payroll? Why do right wingers prefer to read books about human scum have to say about communism instead of what communists actually wrote?

Attached: stalin2.jpg (753x527, 70K)

Yuri subscribes fascism or theocracy to fix societal anti these, wed never get away with that in school

LOL you fake degenerate Lying to boot brainwashed incel.

Attached: thDKADZO5I.jpg (260x180, 13K)

Probably. But schools are run by the (((state))) and only teach you what the (((state))) wants you to know in order to become a productive and cucked unquestioning drone

>Kgb defector is truly credible source definitely doesn't have an agenda and is surely being honest now
Mfw

Attached: 1555503241364.jpg (600x480, 34K)

I showed a clip of him during a history presentation about the cold war. "And here is a soviet agent"

>True freedom can only exist where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another
So true freedom cannot exist if you have more than one person. I concur. Might as well go with a non-utopian ideology then, no?

Exploitation and oppression on a societal and individual level begin to wither away in socialism as private property is abolished.

Strange, my grandparents seem to have experienced the opposite. Boy were they happy when their land got confiscated for a monthly payout of chump change. Make no mistake, they were huge kulak agricultural magnates oppressing the needy, with enough land to feed maybe two people.

The land belongs to those who work it. Also, Hungary was a pretty shit socialist state to be honest, same with most of Eastern Europe. The GDR was the only one that actually followed through with socialism with any commitment.

>The land belongs to those who work it.
My great-grandpa went out in his elderly years with a stool and a hoe to work the land because he could no longer work it standing up. Then it got taken from his children by people wearing suits. Tell me how a system where this practice arises as a necessity is just or conducive to collective success.
>Also, Hungary was a pretty shit socialist state to be honest
Oh, so it wasn't *real* communism, gotcha, Mr suit-clad member of party intelligentsia.

This is why you fuckers deserve the rope in Minecraft, also "muh not real socialism"

Attached: Next Stage Libertarian.png (825x601, 666K)

Because the point of collectivization of land is to eliminate private property, as private land leads to exploitation. The goal of agricultural collectivization was turn peasants into proletarian farmers and remove capitalist land lords. And those people wearing suits didn't then "own" that land, the land was taken into the commons.

>Oh, so it wasn't *real* communism, gotcha
I'd say it was socialist, they just didn't listen to the soviets because of bourgeois nationalism. Part of that is Khrushchev's fault though.

>muh not real socialism
I didn't say that, I said they were pretty shitty and non-committed socialists. Hungary under socialism was marred by bourgeois nationalism. That being said, Eastern Europe was far better even under these less-than-optimal socialist systems than it is under capitalism.

>The goal of agricultural collectivization was turn peasants into proletarian farmers and remove capitalist land lords

Wrong, it was a way of expropriating the peasants while giving them the illusion that they still own the land while also forming large enough plots of land for cultivating similar crops.

>Hungary under socialism was marred by bourgeois nationalism
Hungary opposed socialism,as was seen in the 1956 uprising due to the presence of the Red Army on its territory, you just threw the word bourgeois along with nationalism for the sake of it, so nothing to comment on that. Nationalism is an integral party of a healthy society. You'd get past your commie mentality if you'd realize that what people lack is purpose, I am not pro capitalism but personal initiative is important as long as it does not interfere with the state or the people.

How did it "expropriate" the peasants? The peasants didn't own any land, by definition. Also, people often make the mistake of thinking peasants in collectivization were employed by the state. They were not, they farmed the land and sold the produce to the state.

>Hungary opposed socialism,as was seen in the 1956 uprising due to the presence of the Red Army on its territory
Of course the Hungarian former and extant bourgeoisie opposed socialism, they wanted to align with NATO so they could become an imperial power and go back to exploitation. The CIA also aided the uprising.
cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP99-01448R000401630009-6.pdf

>Nationalism is an integral party of a healthy society.
No it isn't. Nationalism is a capitalist tool. There's patriotism and nationality, which are distinct from nationalism. "Bourgeoisie nationalism", which is the nationalism you favour, as there is a concept of nationalism in socialism, simply exists so that a group of bourgeoisie can maintain control over a particular region. It functions as a tool for them, it has nothing to do with the working class.

Attached: juche1.jpg (2305x945, 415K)

>How did it "expropriate" the peasants? The peasants didn't own any land, by definition

That just shows that you do not understand the dynamics of Eastern European society, the peasants in this case are not the feudal ones but rather people from small villages whose main occupation is basically farming the land that they own following the emancipation of the peasant in the post 1848 world. If you ask any east european what a peasant is, they will tell you that it is an individual from the countryside.

>Of course the Hungarian former and extant bourgeoisie opposed socialism, they wanted to align with NATO so they could become an imperial power and go back to exploitation. The CIA also aided the uprising.

It's funny because that uprising was aided by students,workers and even the military and it was directed against the invasive socialist policies and the Red Army being on their territory. Not to mention the intellectuals that were silenced and imprisoned, most of who had ties to the previous monarchy, the same thing was seen in the neighbouring country of Romania where the intellectuals were decimated. That is the thing with communists, you lack the real intellectual element.

>No it isn't. Nationalism is a capitalist tool. There's patriotism and nationality, which are distinct from nationalism.

Nice Macron quote there fag, patriotism and nationalism are interchangeable as they are synonyms. I never said that I am in favour of (((Bourgeoisie nationalism))), but rather I am in favour of universal nationalism. Of course that there is going to be an aristocracy, but it needs to be benevolent as was the case in some of the Italian states of the Renaissance, opposing hierachy is going against natural order and it never works, for example a member of the Stasi was more privileged than someone working the fields.

Peasants in eastern europe were not fully liberated, they still worked under land lords. That's why they joined the bolsheviks, because Lenin promised to eradicate land lords. "Peace, land and bread" was the bolshevik slogan in 1917-18.

>uprising was aided by students,workers and even the military
No doubt it was. Students workers and the military are not guaranteed to have class consciousness. In the case of the NATO countries and first world in general, this is a fact.

>That is the thing with communists, you lack the real intellectual element.
Socialism never destroys intellectualism. The fact is both capitalism and socialism will get rid of any intellectuals they deem a threat to their class. And why wouldn't they, you don't want enemies in your ranks no matter what your ideology is or whether they're intellectuals or not.

>patriotism and nationalism are interchangeable as they are synonyms
No they aren't. Although this is a terminology thing now. Stalin defined a nation as:
"A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."
What rightests mean by nationalism is the cannibalism, one group of people cannibalizing others for exploitation, such as what the nazis did to the jews, eastern europe and the USSR.

As for the aristocracy, the aristocracy was a class that the bourgeoisie actively destroyed and supplanted. They're almost annihilated in the modern world. And that's the same fate the bourgeoisie will face by the hands of the working class, except this time it will destroy both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and there will be no classes anymore.
.

Attached: dialectical materialism.jpg (700x549, 58K)

>That just shows that you do not understand the dynamics of Eastern European society
Isn't it funny that you find modern support for communism primarily in regions where there's no history of socialist/commie rule? I think it's telling. I bet Mr functionary over here is from some first world country, living in a metropolis. The most contact he had with agriculture is most likely from the pretty landscapes that are printed on his milk cartons.

>Peasants in eastern europe were not fully liberated
We were talking about hungarian peasants, don't move the goalpost.
>Socialism never destroys intellectualism
What is The Black Book of Communism ? What is Bukharin ? What is the intellectual class of Romania, Poland, Hungary ,Bulgaria etc being completely decimated by communism. Not only did they imprison and kill those who oppose them, but also the ones who were marxists and opposed them.

>tldr: I am not gonna follow your definiton because that makes me wrong

Also read Evola you onions filled cunt, no point in arguing when you move the goalpost all the time.
Look senpai, I am a romanian student in this shithole, I see this shit all the time here and I became immune to this. All infighting between romanians and hungarians aside, we have a common enemy that is coming after all of us. We went through almost the same hardships so there is no point in fighting each other anymore.

>I became immune to this
I still get emotional. I'm working on it though.

You literally said Eastern Europe.
>That just shows that you do not understand the dynamics of Eastern European society

>What is The Black Book of Communism
A load of shit and one of the most vile books ever created. Its intent and blatant lies should be obvious when its slithering authors make the accusation that communism is more evil than nazism because "communism killed 100 million while nazism only killed 25 million", leaving out the fact the war the nazis started killed 70 million people world wide. If they applied their own methods to capitalism, they would find under their logic capitalism has killed at least a billion people in its existence.

>What is Bukharin
A terrorist.

>What is the intellectual class of Romania, Poland, Hungary ,Bulgaria etc being completely decimated by communism
No they weren't. Hostile intelligentsia sure, but they were replaced with socialist intelligentsia. I don't even know how you claim socialism hates intelligentsia considered the most common accusation lobbed at socialist is that they're detached intellectuals, something that I think has a ring of truth to it in the first world.

>Also read Evola
I have read Evola, he's an idealist and at the end of the day a servant of capital. Also, occultism is bourgeois nonsense.

You just cherrypicked Russia out of the bunch which still had a feudal system in place because industrialization did not spread as much at that time, I was talking about most of the other states.
You are just arguing that everyone who is not following your ideology should be killed, I am arguing for nationalism ,not capitalism as an intrinsic quality of capitalism is usury, and that every people have a right to self determination in countries united by blood, language and sacrifices(religion). If people is South America decide that they want communism so be it as long as they do not interfere with other countries and if they do,as I am sure it would happen, then retaliation is necessary.
Evola is indeed indealistic in his relation with the modern world, his concepts are simply not possible to fully expand and develop in this time, however that does not mean that they cannot be integrated.

Things will get worse, I also get emotional sometimes but as long as you help your community and better yourself we can overcome this Kali Yuga

so is dialectical materialism another way of saying cyclical economic structuring?
this pictures hints at this concept in this pic.

Attached: whut.png (1536x1043, 352K)

part 2 to explain the weird type a and type b stuff.

Attached: huh.png (2178x1137, 632K)

Okay, pick any eastern European country, the point remains the same. Peasants are the origin of the proletariat, the fucking trigger of capitalism was the black death and the subsequent enclosure of land, which kicked peasants off it so they had no way to subsist. Over 300 years, the peasants gradually turned into proletarians, people who have to work for wage to subsist rather than directly farming the land for subsistence.

Capitalism's intrinsic quality is not usury, that is simply one way of making profit. Capitalism intrinsic quality is that of profit making. As long as the law of profit exists, capitalism will continue creating the same crises and continue exploitation until its either overthrown or something far more terrible happens. And capitalism cannot be reconciled with anti-intervention, a capitalist country cannot sustain itself without imperialism. Look what happened Germany when Britain banned it from imperialism via the Versailles treaty, the Wiemar republic rapidly deteriorated.

Dialectical materialism is a form of logic of how things change and develop through contradiction. When two mutually exclusive things exist, there is a struggle and through it they develop into something new. Evolution for example works this way; when the environment changes and the organism that lives in it does not have suitable means to survive, that is a contradiction. Its resolved by a new organism adapted to the new environment, that is how evolution develops. Marxism is this principle applied to economics and society, or more generally, marxism is the dialectic of private property, from humanities discovery of it a few thousand years ago, through to its abolition, but a far more improved propertyless society in communism.

Your picture isn't wrong though.

Its also worth noting this particular chain of dialectics, from patrician through plebian, through feudal lord ect is only specific to what's commonly termed "the west". Other chains are possible, Russia and China for example basically skipped over capitalism, only using it for a brief time to acrue capital and then abandoning it, and other cultures such as the Maori developed something that could be called a parallel feudalism straight from primitive communism as a result of their particular environmental hardships (the culling of the Moa birds, natural catastrophe ect).

Nationalism isn’t about using other people, the reason it’s rising all over the world again is because the people of a country want foreign invaders to fuck off, and leave them alone, ironically the only groups that want them more than anything one else, just so happen to be commies because “they do the jobs we don’t” and no nationalist wants these people in their own nation for any reason you delusional retard.

I wouldnt say it's the opposite I would say it IS the law of evolution that whatever is capable should develop to a more capable state for it's environment. and as long as the environment is changing this sort of ideal state of being will be a shifting goal post or a sort of carrot on a stick. through logical idea spring forth perhaps as dichotomies or much more simplified position to situations and then an opposing equally simplified position is held. then the group mentality goes to work to arrive at the synthesized position of the dichotomy. this would fast track complex decision making in a collective to deal with approaches to problems much like the biological would adapt to the situation the sort of group psychology of a culture would apply the same general process with the caveat that it is done through a simplified lense of the situation so that as many in the collective could have an input mentally into the problem solving process.

*more than anyone

>Okay, pick any eastern European country, the point remains the same

No it doesn't, you completely dodged the fact that what I said was right, the peasants lost their property. Also usury is a intrinsic part of capitalism, just look at banks.
> Look what happened Germany when Britain banned it from imperialism via the Versailles treaty, the Wiemar republic rapidly deteriorated.
The Weimar Republic was founded after WW1, it failed because of the social enviroment and gave rise to an alternative which proved itself and only disappeared because so many (((capitalist))) and (((communist))) nations ganged up on them.

This is all so tiresome, just get your head out of your ass

>the reason it’s rising all over the world again is because the people of a country want foreign invaders to fuck off
Not in the first world. Nationalism is rising in the first world, particularly in Europe (the USA was always nationalist because of colonialism, its an artificial nation so it needs to crack down on dissent hard) because now that the USSR is gone, there is absolutely no reason for the European bourgeoisie to make concessions to the proletariat to appease them anymore. Thus, now we have neo-liberalism, or the mass clawing back of concessions the workers have won. This is intensifying class conflict, and the capitalist classes solution to that is simply more war, more imperialism, and using immigrants for intense exploitation, scapegoating and to drive wages down instead of the home population.

Well when you apply dialectics to humans, you find that really its not the natural environment that develops us anymore, because to some extent through tool use we can manipulate it. So we don't really need to physically change to adapt to the environment. In the case of humans, it is production that is how we face contradictions and develop. Since the discovery of private property, humans have been developing in this process. From the original priest/king class and their slaves, to the modern proletariat and bourgeoisie, each class is mutually exclusive, and the struggle between them furthers humanity and causes radical change in our society each time.

>the peasants lost their property
No, a *class* of peasants lost their property. The rest developed into proletarians, which is what you want, we don't peasants running around in any modern industrialized nation.

>Also usury is a intrinsic part of capitalism, just look at banks.
Its a thing created by capitalism, as in its a way to make profit, but its not the intrinsic property. Usury still existed before capitalism.

>No, a *class* of peasants lost their property. The rest developed into proletarians, which is what you want, we don't peasants running around in any modern industrialized nation.

You're just affirming your hate for people who do not conform to your social form. I want "peasants" to develop and evolve but not only socially but also physically and intellectually. You want to create a new man based on social equity, I propose to guide people towards becoming an universal man binded together by blood and culture.
>Its a thing created by capitalism
No, it is an basic element to the formation of capitalism, the free market system before capitalism despised usury due to religious reasons, the one that implemented them were jewish, out of all the abrahamic religions that is the only one that allows it.

The schools should be forced to teach that Joe McCarthy was RIGHT.

well my own theory is that civilizations rise and fall partially because human adaptation for surviving the environment is actually shaping the environment itself. which means we now control the carrot on the stick which controls where we go. And we have not yet reconciled how to deal with this. We can create an advanced society removed from nature but we are still subject to adapt to our environment for survival which means we can undo ourselves by adapting to a society that creates people that we have nowdays.as for class we can see that it is cyclical at least in terms of the west and for this I propose what that author proposed which is new technological developments that shift the paradigm will always start with high barriers to entry which by market theory means a monopoly situation is favored. so over time we develop methods of creating wealth and they start off with high barriers to entry until they can be disseminated. and by this theory communism is either so far into the future we may not see it or our society will exist as a dsygenic environment and will exist as a temporary state or until a new paradigm will create a new rich class much like military powers and technology developed.
so communism would imply a wide spread means of generating wealth and military technology that can be applied and used effectively for as many people as possible. and we arrive at the situation we have today where all the best ways to survive in our civilization are the ways that also potentially destroy it.
perhaps this could also be proven by nash equilibrium but thats an entire other topic in itself.

I don't hate peasants, I hate peasantry because its a bad exploitative thing.

>No, it is an basic element to the formation of capitalism
Not really. Finance capitalism was important to capitalism and has probably saved it a few times, but usury existed thousands of years before capitalism, its not "integral" to it.

It should be taught that he "defected" to canada, and almost immediately found employment at cbc doing the exact thing that he warned the soviets were doing

Can you really have modern capitalism without usury?
>I don't hate peasants, I hate peasantry because its a bad exploitative thing.

Yes, feudal systems are exploitative, but why replace it with a system where they will still have no purpose ? Where you will slave away in a factory, go on a holiday once or twice a year but you will stagnate for generations doing the same over and over again. I see that you do not disagree with the concept of developing the people in order to get past their ignorant and materialistic existance

>Can you really have modern capitalism without usury?
No. But that's exactly why capitalists won't let anyone ban it. Capitalism needs to end before usury can be banned.

>but why replace it with a system where they will still have no purpose
In socialism people do have a purpose. Its true people have to work in socialism, there's no reason an able bodied person should not be working while everyone else is. But the purpose of socialism is that its a incubation period for communism. In communism, there are proletarians anymore because there's no capitalists. Its a classless society where everyone is truly free.

>Capitalism needs to end before usury can be banned
Fair enough, I am not pro capitalist
>But the purpose of socialism is that its a incubation period for communism. In communism, there are proletarians anymore because there's no capitalists. Its a classless society where everyone is truly free.

So everyone will descend into hedonism, same as we see today with upper middle class whites who find purpose in homosexuality, giving power to people other than their own in their own countries, materialism etc.
Artificial hardship must be ingrained in people even if there is a post scarcity world, you cannot know a good life without knowing hardship, otherwise your generations will grow progressively morally perverse

>Since the discovery of private property
When was private property discovered?

>So everyone will descend into hedonism
No? Why would they? Also, communism doesn't mean no-one will ever face hardship, it won't be a "utopia". It isn't guaranteed to be post-scarcity.

Officially, with the agricultural revolution. That was the beginning of the first solid private ownership and slavery.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

However, I think private property has existed ever since animals have.
Think about a gorilla or a lion. The males of these species fight over land and females. The strongest lions can claim kilometers of lands and piss all over them so other animals don't go near them. Male gorillas also claim land and once you reach it they will force you out of it. This is how you get private property in nature, through power. In human societies in this era, we value power in different ways. The biggest one is having money. With more money you have more power, with more power you can own more land.

Do you not agree with this?

>No? Why would they
Look at the sheltered suburbanites and urbanites and what they invest their time into.
>it won't be a "utopia". It isn't guaranteed to be post-scarcity
Then the communist endgame isn't really well defined, people will naturally form hierachies, some are smarter than others etc

Sure as much as other youtube faggots.

nice.
private property could be said to be an extension of the central architype of the self in terms of metaphysics so to speak.
private property is the extensive physical extraneous layer of personality.
or in the most laymans possible, private property is the person. this is why you feel violated when your property has been. because they violated the means of your expression and personality.
it's not all this simple sharing changes this because when you share you relinquish this aspect of your self on the material and it simply becomes a means of achieving something, its just a tool then.
but it's a spectrum from very personal property to who gives a shit its public property.

Private property in the marxist sense isn't just general belongings, that's personal property. Private property is the ownership of capital, which is things needed produce other things. The reason the agricultural revolution was the beginning of private property is because it was the first society based on large scale production, whereas hunter-gathering is mostly taking things from the environment.

Your mistake is that you think how capitalism is is fundamentally how humans are. Capitalism generates shitty humans because of the system we're in and culture.

>Then the communist endgame isn't really well defined
It is well defined, its just you can't really make specific predictions about it because you can't see into the future and its not determined. How communism will work will be decided in socialism.

>Your mistake is that you think how capitalism is is fundamentally how humans are

No, I don't believe that, this is why I claim that natsoc takes into consideration human nature and works towards improving it.
>How communism will work will be decided in socialism
It hasn't worked so far, not to mentioned who was behind the communist rebellion in 1917

Nationalist Socialism is capitalism, it isn't socialism.

>It hasn't worked so far
Its worked every time its been implemented, and it worked far better than capitalism.

>who was behind the communist rebellion in 1917
The bolsheviks and working people's all across Europe? When fascists make the "le jews" accusation, they forget the october revolution wasn't the only rebellion in Europe, but 1918 the whole of Europe was in open rebellion and soviets were been proclaimed all over the place, from Italy to Germany. The first open rebellion in Germany was among the kriegsmarine, when the sailors took control of a ship and declared a soviet.

Now that we have concluded that what I said isn't complete bullock.

In monarchies all people are servants of the Tsars, Kings or Sultans.

These people have absolute power and everyone is below them. In Kingdom and Tsardoms there are lords who administer the lands and allow the peasants to work on the land in exchange of living there. If the kings and tsars wanted, they could take away all the land and money of a lord. Therefore making him a peasant like the rest of the population.

In Tsarist Russia most people were serfs. Wouldn't you communist want to give land to the people? Communism is about power to the people and making it so that everyone is equal. Monarchy can't exist in a communist country because 1 man owns everything and this isn't fair. Wouldn't allowing peasants who worked in farms to split the lands among themselves and allow peasants who accumulate capital to buy their own land? This to be is liberation because you are promoted from a serf to a citizen who is able to have some sort of power.

tl;dr
If we assume communism is about power to the people , wouldn't it be best to allow them to own land?

Alright I'm out, thanks.

>Nationalist Socialism is capitalism, it isn't socialism.

No, it is a combination of personal initiative and state controls, the socialist part is mainly focused on the development of the people

But it didn't develop the people. Realistically it didn't function any differently from any other capitalist state, in fact, there isn't really much difference between what nazi germany did and what Britain in the 1800's. Nationalist Socialism was essentially an orgy of imperialism.

Before or after Holocaust class?

what determines if there is a monarchy or a democracy?
I say the same thing that determines whether it is a monopoly or not. Not everyone can start a mining company or run a mining company. by it's very nature it cannot be equal or equally distributed if there exists high barriers to entry such as who can generate the technology or who can acquire the money or has the know how to accomplish it. high barriers to entry mean a concentration of power, something which is outside the hands of people normally.
now will people cooperate or not? this falls under game theory which means ultimately without someone to ensure cooperatioon in society or some people it becomes subject to a lack or concrete agreed upon rules which by it's very nature makes it a non-cooperative game. so long as non-cooperation remains a viable option and so long as there are not clear agreed upon rules with consequences for violation it will remain a non-cooperative game. meaning cooperation may or may not be the outcome.
ultimately the needed conditions for communism are things that remain outside our control. things like the nature of disseminating a paradigm shifting technology. the ability to enforce ethics in a society which relies of authority.
funnily enough the theories that disprove the eventual communist state of man also disprove the free market.

>But it didn't develop the people

Oh boy do I have some news for you.
>there isn't really much difference between what nazi germany
But there is, the construction of the Autobahn, the subduing of the big industrial companies, the promotion of family values and increase in birth rates

Attached: natsoc youth.jpg (991x637, 419K)

Yuri is right, but the subversion is much deeper than just KGB funded psyops. Like he says: most of it is done by Americans to Americans. Also his timeline is a bit fucky because he uses standards of how it worked in third world countries being brought into the Soviet's sphere of influence. The end-game of American subversion is not to join up with the Soviets directly. Particularly since Soviets no longer exist.

Creating an ideologically driven scouts is not "development". True development is when two things that are mutually exclusive but ultimately unified struggle and create something new. This is what communism aims for: the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletarians will annihilate both and lead to a new humanity.

And I don't deny Hitler did somethings, but ultimately he paid for it with MEFOs. And how was Hitler going to pay them back? By giving them a mass supply of slaves and new lands so they could make super profits.

this is a gross misuse or the frichtian dialectic.
you can't assume two concepts for categorizing human societal organization can be combined like two opposing views of something to reach a greater understanding.
class is not two opposing views they are two categories of social stratification. you dont combine classes and arrive at a greater humanity. that is a retarded notion that how wealth is distributed and how human societies organize can just be combined like they are nothing more than opposing views of a problem. this is like saying just combine hate and love and come at the greater neutrality of human emotion because they unified as human emotions.

So "Пpoдpaзвepcткa" and "Кoллeктивизaция"(which was forced) was not an exploitation?
>The land belongs to those who work it.
The land belonged to commies, not workers. Commit some misdemeanor, or be suspected of commiting it - get shot.
Also: "Зaкoн o тpёх кoлocкaх"
>Because the point of collectivization of land is to eliminate private property
The goal was to deprave people of any property in favor "workers party" nomenclature.
>as private land leads to exploitation
Some Ivan just wants to have a farm for himself, so he can feed his familiy. But then "Pacкyлaчивaниe" comes. Ivan's land is taken away. Ivan gets murdered for "counterrevolution". His family gets prosecuted. Ivan's face is wiped off the familiy photo. Now it's forbidden to talk about him and his fate.
>The bolsheviks and working people's all across Europe? When fascists make the "le jews" accusation
picrelated
also: ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пломбированный_вагон
Check out passengers list

YOU ONLY PROVED THAT BEZMENOV IS RIGHT
JUST. FUCKING. KILL. YOURSELF.

Attached: HVn4h-q-7SU.jpg (862x1080, 96K)

>Creating an ideologically driven scouts is not "development
Lebesborn, Youth groups, research into eugenics etc I'd call that a good foundation for further improvement.

>By giving them a mass supply of slaves and new lands so they could make super profits.
Saying that nazis would employ slavery is simply untrue, also before the war there were attempts at maintaining peace as long as the ethnic german lands would be incorporated into the Greater Germany. He even wanted to allow the UK to maintain its empire. This whole concept of world domination by Natsoc Germany is wrong

I didn't say you combine classes. Communism will be the abolition of class altogether, after communism, the dialectic of private property is over.

Hows Russia these days now that the ebil jewish bolsheviks have been defeated and glorious christian capitalism has been introduced? Enjoying the krokidil and rampant prostitution?

Research into eugenics is a nonsense task. Eugenics was created for the sole purpose of justifying capitalism. Its no different from the hymn "the rich man at his castle, poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate".

And you're correct, Hitler had no antagonism toward the British because the British were capitalists as well. What Hitler wanted to enslave jews and slavs and take their lands. The reason Britain wanted Hitler gone was because Britain and France did not want their monopoly on empires threatened.

Attached: the ussr.jpg (1728x2592, 938K)

Battle the facts i presented. Your pathetic ad hominems won't work with me, we are talking about communism right now.

Why did you put sufism islam shit in your holy text playlist feg

>Research into eugenics is a nonsense task.

So you oppose the advancement of my race, alright bucko
You simply justify everything with "muh ebil capitalists" there is no conclusion to this discussion as there is no way to change your mind no matter how many examples or historic facts I bring up

take anything that you can imagine that has a multitude of it. now imagine the qualties it could have. whats so special about this?
its special because so long as you have a multitude of something with varying qualities you will have those qualities unequally distributed. you can redistribute capital lets say. but you can't redistribute the intelligence or talent which is also subject to this distribution paradigm. now you say you need cooperation to overcome this. well as stated before you NEED authority to enforce rules to create a paradigm of a cooperative game. so now you need authoritarianism for that condition. the bitch about this? distribution pops up again not everyone can act with authority effectively, now you could say you got rid of class kind of in the sense of wealth. but now you have a new class of authority popping up because those capable of that role which is now necessary will be a minority of people dictated by distribution. the whole concept just doesnt work out as it was layed out. at the time it made sense but at the time we didn't even have macro economics or pareto distribution or game theory or any of this stuff which now shows it and in the case of game theory and pareto distribution shows it as mathematically not possible. we can also see with restro spect the soviets did better afterwards because of industrialization and agricultural revolution. we can also say it was very painful because they did both at the same time which goes against the natural order or agricultural revolution then industrial as in the west. but ultimately was good because technology improves production which then improves output and increases quality of life.

What "facts"? There are no "facts". The land didn't belong to nomenclature, the proletarian farmers didn't even fucking work for the government, they just sold their produce to it. The government didn't "own" the land, they weren't personally employing farmers for profit.

Race is rounded in production, not biology. And eugenics, for what? Eugenics is predicated on the idea the bourgeoisie are successful because of biology, which is nonsense. They make profits because they are violent exploiters and because of luck. They're gangsters and scum, they're the laziest people on the planet, who'd want to be like them?

Attached: kulak1.jpg (1170x1187, 423K)

Yuri did it for some black pussy

Probably.
This is me bumping.

He thinks human scum and communists can somehow not be coincidental.

How cute...

Kek.
Go away user, go away.
Go built your real working socialism...

>youtube.com/watch?v=DiK8x9LT_LQ

Nowhere does he mention the Jo0oz

>americans do it to americans
>due to russian demoralization

May I say Jow Forums btfo once again?

Attached: 1548788230292.jpg (1353x900, 258K)

Capital is not distributed as such because of intelligence or talent, most of the bourgeoisie are fucking retarded. Just look at Trump, he can barely string a sentence together. Authoritarianism is a meme word, because it implies that the system we live under now isn't also authoritarian.

Only a gullible idiot buys what that guy is saying.

I never said it was distributed because of intelligence or talent I'm saying it's distributed unequally because it's a game of chance and ultimately you can redistribute capital as equally as possible but that doesn't get rid of class. class is not determined by who owns capital. it is detirmined by a meriade of qualities and indicators of social status many of which cannot be redistributed and all of which are subject to being distributed on their own unequally. in order to distribute as many as you can possible in order to get rid of class as much as possible you would need authority or some or something to command and do so. which in and of itself is also subject to distribution. much like planets formed as spheres and this is the most efficient 3rd dimensional shape distribution when left to it's own devices by nature will follow a pattern which runs contrary to human desire. and so long as there are things that determine class in society that humans cannot control they will run contrary to human desire. authoritarians itself again rises as oligarchy more natural distribution. this is ambiguous as being good or bad ultimately but the case nonetheless.
abolishing class in not as simple as just redistributing production because it relies on factors that cannot be distributed and redistribution itself will need to be ongoing and administered by some means. which as I understand it would run contrary to the theory itself.

>Race is rounded in production, not biology

Yeah lads I have nothing more to add I spent too much time on this just so I can get this response.

Race is not a biological fact, race comes from the material conditions of production. It only exists to justify exploitation.

>Should Yuri Bezminov be thought in schools
yes but they are not gonna allow it