Commieboo myths

It doesn't. Modern-day progressive critical race theory is just class warfare reinterpreted in racial terms. In other words, essentially anti-white variant of Nazism - but keep in mind that Nazism was socialism, and modern-day progressivism is an internationalist ideology and in that way closer to Communism (where Nazism was national socialism).
Yes,It is old soviet system with lgbt+ replacing workers as choosen class.
Enemies are still the same - God,Freedom and Property.

I actually had to read critical race theorist works in graduate school. Critical race theorists consider Marxism to be Eurocentric and Marx to be just another old, dead, white man.
And Lenin considered Kautsky as traitor,and another german commie was described as Negro by him.
Sralin killed all important commies which he could.

I've consistently pushed back on the Soviets won the war for years, particularly by showing the importance of Lend Lease. Just don't take it too far because then I think it starts to go the other way; WWII was ultimately a coalition war that depended on equal efforts by both halves of the Allies to win it.
Not truly,it depended on soviets holding front,they do not need to take anything for USA to win with A bomb.
Which would appear faster with smaller Lend-Lease for them.
Only risk was another Hitler-soviet alliance - but,as long as Hitler lived,it was impossible.
 
The worst crimes of Communism are usually the result of the broken ideology being forced on situations where it just won’t work and millions of people suffer/starve to death as a result (with the important exception of the Khmer Rouge, who other communists thought were completely mental to the point that Vietnam intervened on humanitarian grounds!).
The Khmer Rouge is what happens when a high Charisma, high luck, low intelligence anarcho-primitivist leader somehow manages to take over a country.

Communism is functionally dead as a political ideology. Even the CCP is closer to being fascist than genuinely communist. Blaming the 21st century's problems on it is foolish. The best you can do is intersectionality, but that is very much a Western phenomenon that explicitly rejects Marxism-Leninism's class-first perspective.
Its gotten to the point where I'd almost rather talk to a genuine Marxist-Leninist than a modern far-lefty.
 
The Khmer Rouge is what happens when a high Charisma, high luck, low intelligence anarcho-primitivist leader somehow manages to take over a country.


Its gotten to the point where I'd almost rather talk to a genuine Marxist-Leninist than a modern far-lefty.

1.No,it was marxism taken seriously.You need remove all old people to built New world,right? Khmers did so.
2.Agree.
 
The Khmer Rouge is what happens when a high Charisma, high luck, low intelligence anarcho-primitivist leader somehow manages to take over a country.


Its gotten to the point where I'd almost rather talk to a genuine Marxist-Leninist than a modern far-lefty.
Was Pol Pot low intelligence?
 
Communism has largely disappeared in practice. Even if the rhetoric is bandied around a lot by professors. However, the dominant ideology of the modern Western world is the bastard child of Marxism and is a radical leftist ideology. Spawned in part by the Marxists of the Frankfurt School and post-modernism.

This ideology does not yet have a proper name and this is by design because it seeks to manipulate and obfuscate. Letting itself be identified would allow it to be criticized more easily.

Like Marxism it is collectivist, authoritarian, totalitarian, international, secular, and professes egalitarianism - though like Marxism in practice fosters inequality and exploitation. It is anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western, anti-family, anti-nationalism, opposes individual liberty on principle as well as in practice. It is progressive, utopian, militant, and anti-human. It is pro-homosexuality, pro-abortion, pro-transsexuality, and otherwise supports moral and sexual degeneracy. It favors control of information and education and opposes parental influence on children. It is anti-art, anti-skill, anti-beauty, anti-culture, anti-tradition - which is all part of being anti-human.

Unlike Marxism, this ideology is not concerned with workers or the poor, it fact it is openly contemptuous of them and advocates their harm or exploitation. It is implicitly corporatist and the leaders of this movement are usually heavily involved in business, corporations, banking, media, finance, and crony capitalism in general. This movement openly supports the elites, including economic elites, having power over the lives of the populace - a stark contrast with Marxism at least in theory. The movement is post modern and anti-scientific, casually rejecting facts or logic that conflict with their presuppositions. Though they frequently engage in scientism and appeal to the idea, but seldom the reality, of science.

Where was I going with this? Oh yeah, communism. This ideology and movement that dominates the west isn’t communism, but it was spawned largely from Marx and subsequent related leftist ideologies, though it rejects many economic aspects of Marxism in favor of overt corporatist oligarchy.
 
Communism has largely disappeared in practice. Even if the rhetoric is bandied around a lot by professors. However, the dominant ideology of the modern Western world is the bastard child of Marxism and is a radical leftist ideology. Spawned in part by the Marxists of the Frankfurt School and post-modernism.

This ideology does not yet have a proper name and this is by design because it seeks to manipulate and obfuscate. Letting itself be identified would allow it to be criticized more easily.

Like Marxism it is collectivist, authoritarian, totalitarian, international, secular, and professes egalitarianism - though like Marxism in practice fosters inequality and exploitation. It is anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western, anti-family, anti-nationalism, opposes individual liberty on principle as well as in practice. It is progressive, utopian, militant, and anti-human. It is pro-homosexuality, pro-abortion, pro-transsexuality, and otherwise supports moral and sexual degeneracy. It favors control of information and education and opposes parental influence on children. It is anti-art, anti-skill, anti-beauty, anti-culture, anti-tradition - which is all part of being anti-human.

Unlike Marxism, this ideology is not concerned with workers or the poor, it fact it is openly contemptuous of them and advocates their harm or exploitation. It is implicitly corporatist and the leaders of this movement are usually heavily involved in business, corporations, banking, media, finance, and crony capitalism in general. This movement openly supports the elites, including economic elites, having power over the lives of the populace - a stark contrast with Marxism at least in theory. The movement is post modern and anti-scientific, casually rejecting facts or logic that conflict with their presuppositions. Though they frequently engage in scientism and appeal to the idea, but seldom the reality, of science.

Where was I going with this? Oh yeah, communism. This ideology and movement that dominates the west isn’t communism, but it was spawned largely from Marx and subsequent related leftist ideologies, though it rejects many economic aspects of Marxism in favor of overt corporatist oligarchy.

read the stuff marx's father sent to him, he fully understood his son was an asshole.
 
One set of 'commie' myths I dislike is the praise for the T-34.

Once you study tank design you start to notice things about the tank which just are plain silly, things which aren't even related to cost or production requirements.

Like the Panther and it's famously bad setup of optics. Hurt the tank's potential but they were already at their limit of optic production and it was either some tanks with lots of optics. Or a lot of tanks with a few optics. So not a great idea, but excusable.

T-34? Christie suspension on a pretty heavy chassis, one already lacking internal volume due to sloping the armor.

Okay so just in case some people are reading this and have no clue what I am talking about, christie suspension basically uses coil-springs within the chassis. "Oh but torsion bars are internal too!". Of course, but they use up the typically less important vertical space. You can make a tank taller pretty easily, making a tank WIDER can result in a tank which doesn't fit your logistics. Not to mention torsion bars tend to be much closer to one another than christie coil springs, making use of that volume more efficiently.

Lastly a torsion bar designed to handle more weight barely takes up more space because it's a big long hueg solid chunk of spring metal. Christie suspension gets way the hell more complex and bigger as the tank grows in size, which wastes even MORE internal space because they're not packed right next to each other and thus there's these huge 'pockets' in between the springs which are just air.

So the famed 'built for production and glorious quality tank! xaxaxxa!' had a costly, inefficient, space consuming and non-scaleable suspension system that basically everyone dropped pretty quickly.

This isn't like German 'overlapping' wheels which legitimately did have some upsides with the downs. This is just plan BAD.

Bad if you want lots of tanks, bad if you want good tanks and bad if you're the tankers themselves because GOOD FUCKING LUCK repairing that suspension, you need to unbolt the whole fucking side of the tank.

Now if the suspension is just THAT bad, how well do you reckon the rest of the tank was? I might make some more posts about the T-34 after any critique of this post, or other posts are made. In general even if you made a T-34 with upmost quality, it's still going to let you down from a purely mechanical standpoint. A lot of other WW2 tanks cannot say the same.
 
One set of 'commie' myths I dislike is the praise for the T-34.

Once you study tank design you start to notice things about the tank which just are plain silly, things which aren't even related to cost or production requirements.

Like the Panther and it's famously bad setup of optics. Hurt the tank's potential but they were already at their limit of optic production and it was either some tanks with lots of optics. Or a lot of tanks with a few optics. So not a great idea, but excusable.

T-34? Christie suspension on a pretty heavy chassis, one already lacking internal volume due to sloping the armor.

Okay so just in case some people are reading this and have no clue what I am talking about, christie suspension basically uses coil-springs within the chassis. "Oh but torsion bars are internal too!". Of course, but they use up the typically less important vertical space. You can make a tank taller pretty easily, making a tank WIDER can result in a tank which doesn't fit your logistics. Not to mention torsion bars tend to be much closer to one another than christie coil springs, making use of that volume more efficiently.

Lastly a torsion bar designed to handle more weight barely takes up more space because it's a big long hueg solid chunk of spring metal. Christie suspension gets way the hell more complex and bigger as the tank grows in size, which wastes even MORE internal space because they're not packed right next to each other and thus there's these huge 'pockets' in between the springs which are just air.

So the famed 'built for production and glorious quality tank! xaxaxxa!' had a costly, inefficient, space consuming and non-scaleable suspension system that basically everyone dropped pretty quickly.

This isn't like German 'overlapping' wheels which legitimately did have some upsides with the downs. This is just plan BAD.

Bad if you want lots of tanks, bad if you want good tanks and bad if you're the tankers themselves because GOOD FUCKING LUCK repairing that suspension, you need to unbolt the whole fucking side of the tank.

Now if the suspension is just THAT bad, how well do you reckon the rest of the tank was? I might make some more posts about the T-34 after any critique of this post, or other posts are made. In general even if you made a T-34 with upmost quality, it's still going to let you down from a purely mechanical standpoint. A lot of other WW2 tanks cannot say the same.

My two cents on the T34 as a civilian with a civilian understanding is the T34 was the best to be mass produced with the ongoing situation and material available.
 
My two cents on the T34 as a civilian with a civilian understanding is the T34 was the best to be mass produced with the ongoing situation and material available.
In that case you would be incorrect I'm afraid.

With mass production you want simple, reliable, and easy to develop.

T-34 was not simple, was not reliable, and was challenging to upgrade.
I'm not a huge fan of the Sherman but it ticks all three of those boxes.

With WW2 tanks you primarily want to go for 1 of 2 suspension options, external 'bolt on' suspension modules like the Sherman HVSS, or internal 'quality' suspension, namely torsion bars. Which stuff like the Panther/Tiger had.

T-34 had the worst of both worlds, hard to maintain internal suspension with ride-quality worse than good bolt-on modules.
 
The T-34 was basically a ''foot in the door'' design for Kharkov design bureau, it was the best they could do to mollify the demands of procurement bureaucracy for BT-7 successor. Koshkin envisioned a T-34M with torsion bar suspension and three man turret to be developed after tank is accepted into production and his successor Morozov started the development, but when the war broke out, there was no chance for mayor retooling and all efforts were made towards maximum production, with only minimal modifications, until Tiger and Panther forced them to upgun the tank.
 
Its gotten to the point where I'd almost rather talk to a genuine Marxist-Leninist than a modern far-lefty.

Same here. The old-school Commie doesn't think the government can magically conjure resources out of thin air in order to give everyone hand-outs. And he'll boast that the Soviet Union put the first man into space, not denounce the very concept of space exploration as "white supremacist".

I have talked with people who seemed to have heavily drunk the Marxist Kool-aid - and I could still have an intelligible discussion with them. We didn't agree on much, but they would actually listen to what I was saying and try to counter my arguments - not stick their fingers in their ears and call me a racist.
 
The T-34 was basically a ''foot in the door'' design for Kharkov design bureau, it was the best they could do to mollify the demands of procurement bureaucracy for BT-7 successor. Koshkin envisioned a T-34M with torsion bar suspension and three man turret to be developed after tank is accepted into production and his successor Morozov started the development, but when the war broke out, there was no chance for mayor retooling and all efforts were made towards maximum production, with only minimal modifications, until Tiger and Panther forced them to upgun the tank.
Frankly once the tides turned and Germany was on the backfoot, production of the T-34M should've been made.
Continued usage of such a flawed design is nothing but barbarism towards the fighting men, treating them like expendable numbers.

Even Germany's last-ditch projects like the Hetzer showed SOME affection towards the men.
 
As I understand it, the T34 was also a rather difficult tank to get out of quickly if things went up in flames...

Same here. The old-school Commie doesn't think the government can magically conjure resources out of thin air in order to give everyone hand-outs. And he'll boast that the Soviet Union put the first man into space, not denounce the very concept of space exploration as "white supremacist".

I have talked with people who seemed to have heavily drunk the Marxist Kool-aid - and I could still have an intelligible discussion with them. We didn't agree on much, but they would actually listen to what I was saying and try to counter my arguments - not stick their fingers in their ears and call me a racist.

I think old school Commies still operate under a “might makes right” mentality, instead of being constant bleeding hearts. There’s a brutal honesty to them, which makes them a touch more tolerable.
 
As I understand it, the T34 was also a rather difficult tank to get out of quickly if things went up in flames...
Truth is a lot of tanks were like that, when the total size of a tank must be kept to a minimum to maintain weight/reliability, crew comfort is never exceptional.

Sherman was very well designed from an ergonomic standpoint, good space for crew, hatches for every crew member, and the hatches were spring-loaded to make them easy to open in a hurry.

Buuuuuuuuut that came at the cost of cost, complexity, and overall tank size. Something some nations simply could not afford to choose. Imagine the horror on a German tank designer's face when you request high grade springs to be 'wasted' on something as simple as a god damned door. On the otherhand American basically smashed the 'All the springs!' button anytime they wanted.
 
Same here. The old-school Commie doesn't think the government can magically conjure resources out of thin air in order to give everyone hand-outs. And he'll boast that the Soviet Union put the first man into space, not denounce the very concept of space exploration as "white supremacist".

I have talked with people who seemed to have heavily drunk the Marxist Kool-aid - and I could still have an intelligible discussion with them. We didn't agree on much, but they would actually listen to what I was saying and try to counter my arguments - not stick their fingers in their ears and call me a racist.
Me too. I think the cosmopolitan college leftist is mostly an Anglophone phenomenon. Maybe it extends to Germanics as well like Norway,Sweden Germany and the Netherlands.
 
As I understand it, the T34 was also a rather difficult tank to get out of quickly if things went up in flames...



I think old school Commies still operate under a “might makes right” mentality, instead of being constant bleeding hearts. There’s a brutal honesty to them, which makes them a touch more tolerable.

No I've dealt with those guys their a might makes right bunch too only with out the idea that their victims could or would fight back. Its one of the reasons why my money is that time is their enemy because they piss off everyone around them and grow the enemy coalition just by being themselves.
 
No I've dealt with those guys their a might makes right bunch too only with out the idea that their victims could or would fight back. Its one of the reasons why my money is that time is their enemy because they piss off everyone around them and grow the enemy coalition just by being themselves.
Traditional communists and the new leftism that has replaced it have another thing in common - a complete rejection of honor. Lies are acceptable, so is fighting dirty, double standards are encouraged. Might makes right when ever they have an advantage in power, while ideas of fairness or sympathy towards the weak are invoked when they have the disadvantage. There are no objective standards, merely what ever tactic serves them in the moment.

Though I guess at least old school Soviets would charge a Panzer IV with only one rifle between five guys while our modern SJWs need counseling if someone uses the “wrong” pronoun in their presence.
 
Last edited:
Traditional communists and the new leftism that has replaced it have another thing in common - a complete rejection of honor. Lies are acceptable, so is fighting dirty, double standards are encouraged. Might makes right when ever they have an advantage in power, while ideas of fairness or sympathy towards the weak are invoked when they have the disadvantage. There are no objective standards, merely what ever tactic serves them in the moment.

Though I guess at least old school Soviets would charge a Panzer IV with only one rifle between five guys while our modern SJWs need counseling if someone uses the “wrong” pronoun in their presence.
Honor exists for a reason and they will descover it the hard way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top