Thursday, 27 February 2014

White Race Suicide by Dr. William Pierce.

The salient feature of the 20th century was the collective suicide of the White race. In 1900 we ruled the world. We ruled politically, militarily, culturally, economically, scientifically, and in every other way. No other race even came close. We ruled India and Africa directly, and China was for all practical purposes an economic colony of Europe and America. The Chinese Emperor remained on his throne only so long as he let White men have their way in China. Japan was the only non-White nation of any significance that even had pretensions of autonomy.

We had superior weapons, superior armed forces, superior communications, superior transportation, superior agriculture and industry, superior standards of health, superior organization, superiority in every facet of science and technology. We had the best universities -- really, the only universities worthy of the name -- the best engineers. We built things that other races couldn't even imagine. We explored, we conquered, we ruled.

More important than anything else was our moral superiority -- and please don't misunderstand my use of that term. I don't mean that we were meek and inoffensive and turned the other cheek. I mean that we were proud and self-confident. We knew who we were, and we knew that we were far, far better than anyone else, and we weren't at all embarrassed by the fact that we were better. We recognized racial differences in the same way we recognized that the sun rises in the east, and we felt not the slightest need to apologize to anyone for that. Egalitarianism was a moral and mental disease that afflicted only a few of our people, despite the murderous outburst of egalitarian insanity that was the French Revolution a century earlier. Any sort of racial mixing was abhorrent to us. We looked on miscegenation with the same disgust and disapproval as on bestiality or necrophilia. We didn't tolerate it. And we didn't accept or trust Jews. That was our situation a century ago.  

We did have some faults, however: some very serious faults. We were not vigilant. We were so confident in our superiority that we failed to heed the warnings of the few among us who were vigilant. We didn't pay attention when a few warned us, "Hey, we'd better do something about the race problem. We have nine million non-Whites in the United States, according to the 1900 census, and in the future they could become a real problem for us. Let's start getting rid of them now.

We thought, "Well, as long as they stay on their side of town and stay out of sight, how can they be a problem for us? Besides, they're useful for picking cotton and as cleaning women and cooks and gardeners."

And when a few warned us about the Jews we also didn't pay attention. A few warned us about the damage the Jews had done to us in the past, about their malevolence, about their growing wealth, but most of us didn't take the warnings seriously. We saw the Jews as obnoxious and unpleasant people, and we didn't let them into our private clubs and our better hotels, but we didn't consider them really dangerous. We didn't even become alarmed when they began buying up our newspapers and elbowing their way into other propaganda media.

And lack of vigilance wasn't our only fault. We were too ready to quarrel with one another. No other race was seen as a threat to ours, so we felt no need to suppress our internal rivalries and jealousies and hatreds and form a solid front against the non-White world. We let fester old rivalries between the English and the Germans and between the Germans and the French and between the English and the Boers in South Africa and between those of us who spoke Germanic languages and those of us who spoke Slavic or Romance languages. We didn't notice our faults, our weaknesses -- but others did.

The latter half of the 19th century saw not only the beginning of the acquisition of our mass media by the Jews, but also the nearly simultaneous hatching of two long-term, murderous conspiracies designed to exploit our weaknesses and turn them against us. These two conspiracies were Zionism and Marxism. Some Jews went with one, some with the other, but both were deadly for us.

The Marxists issued their Communist Manifesto as far back as the middle of the 19th century, but it was another 50 years before they were able to have much of an impact on the Gentile world. As for the Zionists, they also began propagandizing and organizing about the middle of the 19th century and only became noticeable at the beginning of the 20th century, when they began having international Zionist congresses and more or less openly laying their plans to foment wars and revolutions, of which they could take advantage to promote Jewish interests.

For example, at the Zionist Congress in 1897, in Basel, Switzerland, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl told his fellow Jews that they were having trouble persuading the Turks, who at that time controlled Palestine, to turn the country over to them, but that the Jewish leaders had plans for getting around the Turks. And I should mention that Herzl's address to the 1897 Zionist Congress has been published in a number of places, and any diligent researcher can dig up a copy. Herzl said:

"It may be that Turkey will refuse us or will be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now a question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time."

Remember, Herzl was talking about the Jews' plans 17 years before the outbreak of the First World War. But the Jews were ready when the time came. In 1916, with the war more or less stalemated, they approached Britain's political leaders and made a deal to bring the United States into the war on the side of Britain in return for a British promise to take Palestine away from Turkey and turn it over to the Jews after the war. The British side of the deal was made public in the so-called Balfour Declaration. And the Zionists kept their end of the bargain by working through Jews close to the Democratic President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had won the election to his second term in the White House in 1916 by promising America's voters that he would keep the United States out of the European war. But as soon as he took office in 1917 he began scheming to get the country into the war on the side of Britain, which, of course, he did two months later. That cost a couple of million additional Gentile lives, but it got Palestine for the Jews -- and it also prolonged the war enough for the Jews in Russia to topple the czar and get their communist revolution off the ground.

When I said that some Jews took the Marxist route and some the Zionist route, I didn't mean that all Jews became active workers in one or the other of those movements. Most Jews remained full-time money-grubbers and provided propaganda and financial support for their conspiratorial brethren, continuing to buy up mass media and to dispense capital to the Zionists or the communists as needed. And they didn't wait for the First World War for that. The first big Gentile bloodletting of the last century in which they had a hand was the Boer War in South Africa, between the British and the Boers. This cruel and murderous war, in which Jewish capitalists were allied with British capitalists against South Africa's Dutch and German and French farmers -- the Boers -- laid the foundations for Jewish control of much of Africa's mineral wealth.

In 1904 the Jewish Wall Street speculator Jacob Schiff, planning ahead for a communist takeover of Russia, helped to finance the Japanese side in the Russian-Japanese war and used his influence to block loans to the Czar's government from America. This was the same Jacob Schiff who a little more than a decade later provided the Jewish-Bolshevik movement with an infusion of $25 million to finish the job in Russia: that's $25 million from capitalist Wall Street to finance the communist butchery of Gentile Russians. In 1917 $25 million was a lot of money; in any case it bought enough bombs and bullets and communist propaganda leaflets to get the job done.

Now, none of this Jewish activity was really secret. The lemmings didn't know about it, because it wasn't in the funny papers or the movies. But Jews weren't even trying to keep their sympathies or their activities secret, and observant Gentiles continued to issue warnings to anyone who would listen. But, as I said a moment ago, we weren't vigilant. White Americans didn't believe that they were in any danger. Things such as the deal to bring America into the First World War in return for the turning of Palestine over to the Jews were too subtle for the American mind.

After the war the mass murder of Ukrainians and Russians by Jewish-Bolshevik commissars might possibly have registered with White Americans, except that the average White American didn't think of Russians and Ukrainians as real people: they spoke a different language and dressed differently from us. And besides, by that time the Jews had gotten a pretty good grip on Hollywood and the broadcasting industry, and so the only side of the story that most Americans were allowed to see or hear was the Jewish side.

Europeans were more vigilant than Americans. For one thing Europeans had longer memories: they were more aware of the long history of Jewish scheming and predation than Americans were. For another thing, in Europe the danger was quite a bit closer. Communist parties in a number of European countries besides Russia had taken advantage of the chaos in the wake of the war to make grabs for power, and in a few countries -- Hungary, for example -- they succeeded temporarily. People noticed the ethnicity of the commissars and were horrified by their behavior toward the Gentile populations. Even in insular Britain no less a public figure than Winston Churchill spoke out clearly about the danger of Jewish communism. In a full-page feature article in the February 8, 1920, issue of London's Illustrated Sunday Herald, Churchill wrote:

"This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weisshaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Rosa Luxembourg in Germany, and Emma Goldman in the United States, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky or of Zinovieff or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."

Actually, Churchill said quite a bit more in this article about the dangers of allowing Jewish communism to go unchecked, and if you really want to make a study of the background of our present mess you should read the entire article yourself. That's the February 8, 1920, issue of the Illustrated Sunday Herald. If you can't find it yourself in a large research library, the entire article is photographically reproduced in the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, which is available from National Vanguard Books, the sponsor of this program. And when you do find the article from which I just read -- a major article written by one of the most prominent personalities of the last century and published in a major British newspaper -- you might ask yourself why you had never heard of it before I called it to your attention.

As I said, we lacked vigilance. A few people paid attention -- America's pioneer automaker Henry Ford, for example -- but most White Americans were too busy with their ball games and funny papers. And we didn't really care about what the Jews were doing to White people overseas, since they weren't Americans. About the only people who really paid attention were the Germans, who resolved not to let the Jews do to them what they had done to the Russians and had tried to do to the Hungarians. So they proceeded to get Rosa Luxembourg and her pals off their backs and out of Germany. And when the Germans did that, the Jews in America began screaming bloody murder and calling for another world war to save them from the Germans. And by this time the Jews had almost a monopoly on getting their side of the story to the American public.

Well, our people had one other fault in addition to an inadequate sense of racial solidarity with other Whites around the world and a lack of vigilance: we also lacked responsible leadership. We lacked even a system for giving us responsible leadership. What we had were politicians: skilled liars -- actors, lawyers -- who never asked themselves, "What policy is good for our people?" but only, "How can I get elected? What must I promise the people in order to get their votes? What policy will make me popular?" And as the grip of the Jews on the mass media, on Hollywood and Madison Avenue -- and therefore on the minds of the public -- became more and more nearly complete throughout the last century, the question the politicians asked themselves became, more and more: "What must I do to please the Jews and gain their support?"

And so in 1933, in the same year that a German government took office with a policy of freeing the German people from the grip of the Jews, in America a government took office with a policy of doing whatever the Jews wanted done. Franklin Roosevelt surrounded himself with more Jews than any previous American President. In this regard he was the Bill Clinton of his day.

Using Roosevelt as their willing tool, the Jews pulled the same sort of bait-and-switch trick on the American people to get us into the Second World War that they had pulled using Woodrow Wilson to get us into the First World War. Just as Wilson had done 24 years earlier, Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1940 on a campaign promise to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, and while he was making that promise to the American people he was actively scheming with his Jewish advisors and supporters to get the United States into the war as soon as he could, and meanwhile to keep the war in Europe going by making promises of support to those countries opposed to Germany.

It was fighting on the wrong side of that war, more than anything else, that laid us low. It also destroyed the British Empire and laid Britain low. Throughout the non-White world Whites began abdicating their rule, withdrawing, apologizing. The disease of egalitarianism spread like wildfire. There was a moral collapse throughout the White world. It wasn't just the German people who lost the Second World War; it was all Europeans, all White people, including European-Americans.

The Jews were the only real winners. The First World War resulted in opening up Palestine for their Zionist faction and delivering Russia to their communist faction. The Second World War not only saved them from getting booted out of Europe by Hitler, it delivered all of eastern and much of central Europe to their communist faction and finished delivering Palestine to their Zionist faction. The war cost them a million or so of the less-nimble Jews in Europe, but it gave them the basis for their enormously profitable "Holocaust" story, with which they have beaten the White world over the head ever since.   
And so today we have George Bush trying to outdo Bill Clinton in multiculturalizing the government of the United States. Conservative Americans, patriotic Americans, put their hope in Bush to pull America back from the insanity of the Clinton era, and the first thing Bush does is try to ingratiate himself with the Clintonistas, with the Jews, by appointing non-Whites to the most important posts in his administration.

Read the man's lips. What he's saying is: "Hey, I'm really not such a bad guy. See, I'm appointing Blacks, I'm appointing Jews, I'm appointing Mexicans. And the Blacks and Mexicans I'm appointing are just as pro-Jewish as I am. My tough-talking Black secretary of state speaks Yiddish and will support Jewish interests around the world just as strongly as Bill Clinton's Jewish secretary of state has done. You can trust me. I'll do whatever you tell me. I'll support Israel. I'll support 'speech crime' laws. I'm your man." And he's not saying that, he's not making these appointments, because that's what Republicans want or even what Americans want. It's what the Jews want. George Bush is a hollow man, an empty man.

And George Bush is a splendid symbol of the state of our race today: a splendid symbol of our moral collapse during the past century. It is entirely fitting that such a man should be our figurehead leader as we continue on the course of racial suicide that we have been on for the past century. It is entirely appropriate that he became our figurehead leader through the comic-opera sort of process we have witnessed during the last two months of the first year of this century -- which certainly will be our last century if we do not make a radical change of course soon and begin regaining our lost moral strength. 

Thursday, 20 February 2014

An Introduction to Cultural Marxism

For a long time I’ve wanted to write an article about cultural Marxism, but trying to limit the scope of my article or covering all of the different ideas has been very challenging.  I’ve read the Wikipedia entry and it talks about the Frankfurt school, but I’m not convinced that it’s that neat, I actually think it has more to do with human nature than Karl Marx.  This will only be the first of several articles I plan to write about cultural Marxism, but I wanted to get this piece out just as an introduction to the topic or something of a “how to spot a Cultural Marxist” before I start exploring the different aspects of cultural Marxism more deeply.

Socialism, Communism and Marxism

Marxists are a diverse group, many people might say what binds them altogether is their ideas of collectivism.  I disagree, what binds them all together is the reasoning that all human relationships across ethnic, class, cultural, religious, political, sexual and personal levels can be reduced to a dynamic of dominance and submission with an oppressed and an oppressor.  That is to say, where there is a distinction between two groups of people, their relationship will be one of oppressed versus oppressor or, in other words, good and bad people.  In addition to this, the group who is better off, or perceived to be better off (privileged), is automatically the guilty party.  Anyone the cultural Marxists label as ‘privileged’ is the enemy of society, the only safe position is to be or appear to be a helpless victim.

I don’t believe Karl Marx invented Marxism, I think it’s part of our primitive tribalistic egalitarian programming that served our species well in nomadic times.  It kept the most members of the tribe alive through the systemic exploitation of the hardest workers, thus providing a survival advantage to the species overall.  Cultural Marxists are no different to revolutionaries or communists in their desired outcomes for all societies, they differ only in that they wish to push their agenda using non-violent tactics of social shaming and guilt farming.  Since this is driven by a primitive instinct, I doubt most cultural Marxists are conscious of what they do or why they do it, but they are all people filled with good intentions, just lacking the awareness of how their behaviour is actually impacting the world around them and how it is impacting their own ability to have a happy and satisfying life.  An independent, self-made individual cannot be a cultural Marxist because their self-reliance removes any incentive to depend on other people.  The more dependent a person is on other people, emotionally, socially or materially, the more likely they will be a cultural Marxist.

Political Correctness

The best definition of political correctness I’ve heard is, “putting the responsibility of the listener’s reaction on the speaker.”  For example, if you say something to me that upsets me, then it’s your fault that you upset me, so watch your mouth in future in case you hurt my fragile feelings else I will not be responsible for beating you up.  This is the mentality of a tyrant, yet everyday we walk by streets filled with people who think like this.  Cultural Marxists think like this, because they are emotionally dependent on other people.

One will catch cultural Marxists out when it comes to political correctness because they get upset if you express opinions, ideas or facts that they don’t agree with.  For example, it is an established fact in the USA that black people commit far more crimes than white people.  There is no rational reason why stating this fact by itself should upset anyone, but cultural Marxists might react in ways from hushing you to silence, ridiculing you or even making an outright accusation of racism.

Another example would be expressing an opinion such as, “I believe men on average have a higher pain threshold than women,” this is an opinion I have expressed openly and it once met the response of, “don’t ever tell a woman that!”  However, the person I was talking to was a woman, and she personally didn’t mind I had that opinion, she disagreed with it, but she didn’t need to make me agree with her opinion and vice-versa.  We could safely and amicably disagree.  But the fact that she felt she had to warn me, for my own safety, not to express such an opinion points to the power of political correctness and consequently cultural Marxism.  Although a smaller proportion of people are cultural Marxists, they have a disproportionately large influence on the freedom of discourse in our society through the use of intimidating people into silence about expressing their honest opinions publicly.

When was the last time you told someone exactly what’s on your mind before going through an intense bout of thinking to work out if it was safe to say it?  Thank the cultural Marxists policing your every thought.

Negative Nationalism

Negative Nationalism is the belief that your country is corrupt, degenerate and unworthy of ones love and loyalty.  For me personally, this is one of the ugliest and most alarming signs of cultural Marxism.  The contempt of many people, particularly university students, have for their nation is an extremely troubling situation.  Especially since university graduates will fill up the vast majority of positions of authority in our society.  When I talk about nationalism, or the love of ones country, I’m not talking about mindless obedience to the government or a national leader.  Nationalism is the love of ones country, indeed, to love ones country implies a distrust, suspicion even hostility to national governments because it’s impossible to trust politicians with the proper care and concern for the well-being of something you love so dearly.

Nationalism is about saying, I demand better leaders for my country, I demand better reasons for my country to go to war than to support corporate greed or airy-fairy altruistic ideas of civilising “savage” Peoples.  Nationalism is creating a society where everyone looks out for everyone else because they share a common identity and set of values.  Nationalism is about building a strong community, a united community.  It isn’t about conformity or mindless loyalty.  Indeed, for any leader or government to demand mindless loyalty from the people of the country is a crime against the nation.  A crime we used to call treason.

Negative nationalism is another form of treason.  Once upon a time we would call anyone who said, “I feel ashamed of being Australian!” a traitor, or at least suspect that they willing to commit treason.  What’s revealing in the person who says, “I hate my country,” is that the reasons they give are because of a decision the government have made.  ‘I hate my country because of a government decision’ is the same messed up mentality of confusing nationalism with worshipping the government or the state.  If the government made decisions they agreed with, would they love their country then?  Would you feel comfortable trusting a fellow citizen whose love for ones country was so tenuous?  You’d think them a tyrant or an opportunist ready to betray their country at the first opportunity for personal profit.

To the cultural Marxist, if the government doesn’t enact their utopian socialist or communist policies, they hate their country.  I can’t think of a more treacherous or contemptible attitude for a fellow citizen to have.  Yet here in the West, we have gotten so used to cultural Marxists openly denigrating the dignity and sanctity of our nations that we don’t even attempt to challenge them on this.  Instead, we retreat into the cold, lonely, frightening and isolated place that is a people without national unity making them feel strong, united, cared for and protected.

Marxist Atheism

In order to understand the difference between personal rational Atheism and Marxist atheism one needs to understand that Marxism is a religion.  Like any religion, Marxism has a complete rule book for life.  It has sacred texts (“Das Kapital” and “The Communist Manifesto”), saints and prophets (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao etc…) and it even copies from other religions like Catholicism.  Here is an example of Marxist history and prophecies, and how they align with Catholic history and prophecies:

Catholicism: We were once one with God in the paradise called the Garden of Eden

Communism: We were once happy and fulfilled living in nomadic societies in a state called primitive communism.

Catholicism: We committed sin and were outcast from paradise.

Communism: We invented individual property (capital) and started to destroy our happiness and world.

Catholicism: We will enter unto a complete stage of sinfulness, where brother will slay brother and mothers will devour their children

Communism: We will enter unto a complete stage of global capitalism, where brother will slay brother and mothers will devour their children.

Catholicism:  Then Jesus will return, brought forth by the weight of the world’s sin collapsing upon itself.

Communism: The global capitalist system will collapse upon the weight of its own corruption.

Catholicism: We will finally re-enter into the kingdom of god and live in paradise until the end of history.

Communism: We will finally create a perfect communist society that will endure until the end of history.

Cultural Marxists, like most Catholics, aren’t too savvy about why they believe the things they do, but like most religious people, they seldom question their own ideas and view adherents to any other religions as their enemies.  Cultural Marxism’s opposition to all other religions is for the same reason Christianity and Islam are opposed to all other religions: they’re rivals for their cultural domination.

If life wasn’t complicated enough already, it is important to keep in mind that not all atheists are cultural Marxists, I myself am vehemently opposed to cultural Marxism and I am an atheist.  Just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean they’re a cultural Marxist, nor does it mean that believers in a god(s) can’t be cultural Marxists too.  There are no pure cultural Marxists, just as there are no pure Christians.  Cultural Marxism is dissolved into our culture and if it ever precipitates within the solution then we’ll get the gulags and concentration camps necessary to purify the impure cultural Marxists among us.  But we don’t have that level of organisational awareness yet, just lots of well-intentioned individual saboteurs in our societies.  But if the current trend continues in our societies, then this situation is most likely inescapable.

The Herd vs The Individual

Which is more important?  The interests of the many or the interests of the individual?  The obvious answer is the interests of the many.  However, that’s a gross simplification of civilised thinking and one I will bet that you would regret if you attempt to live by it.  Cultural Marxists bring up this point all the time as justification of their social policies, we’ve got to rescue the 99%, the majority think this way so we should just go ahead and do it.  It is really another way of saying, ‘might makes right’; if you have the most numbers, then you’re automatically morally right.  Winning and being morally right, however, have a purely coincidental relationship if they should ever occur at the same time, yet by using the herd versus individual argument cultural Marxists will hide their inner moral vacuum.

Just say you wanted to go and pick some fruit, you go and ask Betty if you could borrow her bag, she says no.  So respecting her decision, you find some scraps of material and with some thread make your own bag.  You then ask Toby if you can borrow his ladder, he says no, so you decide you’ll climb the trees instead even though it is more effort and dangerous for you to do so.  Then you ask Julie if she will help you to pick the fruit and she says no as well.  Finally you ask Gary if he can give you a lift up the hill to the orchard and he says no.  Unperturbed, you trudge up that hill, get scratched climbing the trees to collect the fruit, struggle to carry them back, in your home-made bag, down the hill, but in the end after much hard work you return with a bounty.  You’re just about to sit down and enjoy the fruits of your labour when Betty, Toby, Julie and Gary walk in and demand their share of your fruit.  They talk about the importance of equality and demand the fruit be divided evenly with 20% each.

Is this a fair outcome?  It’s an equal outcome, and in the best interests of the majority.  If we were living on the savanna in pre-history this decision would aid group survival.

This is socialism and it is cultural Marxism.  The belief that lazy and unhelpful people are entitled to the labours of resourceful and hardworking people.  They call it compassion, they call it welfare, they call it affirmative action, they call it thinking of others less fortunate than you.  I call it theft.  Furthermore, I believe if you don’t pay tax, you don’t have a right to vote.  It isn’t fair that people who don’t contribute resources to the state, should have an equal say to those who give to the state.  Cultural Marxists will insist though that everyone has a right to your property or good fortune because it is in the best interests of the majority.

Disclaimer: I know capitalism has its faults, I’m not denying this, I’m merely denying that socialism is a viable solution to these faults.

For any society to survive it is essential that we cultivate an attitude of reciprocation: I help you, you help me.  This is individualism, not to be confused with selfishness (that’s socialism), where an individual’s rights over their bodies, their property and their resources can just be stripped by the majority whenever they want to.  I do care about homeless people, I do care about poverty in Africa, but that’s no excuse to demand I hand over my money for people who will not even show any appreciation much less reciprocation for my sacrifice for them.  Cultural Marxists will say I’m greedy and heartless, I say I have self-respect and if there’s one thing cultural Marxists hate, is people with self-respect; They’re very hard to extort money and resources from.  Cultural Marxists want you to feel demoralised, unworthy and undeserving, or rather, they need you to feel like this otherwise the whole socialist economic system won’t work, because anyone with an atom of self-respect is going to feather their own nest when they can and the Eastern Bloc had corruption like this on an endemic level.


Feminism is the belief that women form a class, like slaves or black people form a class, and that according to Marxist theory there is a dialectical and historical relationship of antagonism between men and women of oppressor and repressed exactly like wealthy land-owner and serf.  I’ve already written an in-depth article on this and how I explain that feminism and socialism are essentially the same thing that I will publish soon, so I won’t go into much detail here.  However, I will say, while not every single self-identified feminist (male or female) is a cultural Marxist, you’d be pretty damn safe making a bet on it.

Meaningless Abstract Art

I have no idea how much this is directly caused by cultural Marxism or if Western art has just suffered collateral damage from cultural Marxism.  But much of Western art is overpriced, uninspiring, degenerate and just ugly nowadays and here’s how I think it happens:

An artist decides to create a painting, sculpture, novel or a piece of music.  What can I create, he thinks?

A beautiful image of physical perfection like David or Venus?  No, that’s not politically correct, people might think I don’t like ugly people or I’m some kind of fascist.

An inspiring story about a settler or explorer?  No, that’s not politically correct either because white people are ashamed of their history and culture, or at least they should be.

The story of a white heterosexual man triumphing against the odds? No, that’s not politically correct either because we know white heterosexual men are privileged violent arseholes who create all the world’s problems and it might upset everyone who is not a white heterosexual male.

A story taken from of European cultural history or myth?  No, Europeans have too much privilege, it would upset non-Europeans.

I know, I’ll just draw some meaningless coloured lines that will upset nobody and if anyone criticises it I’ll pull an “Emperor’s new clothes” trick on them to make them look stupid, or I’ll create a story about a foreigner or homosexual person 95% of people in this country aren’t going to relate to themselves in any meaningful way or I can make a piece exposing how corrupt and degenerate human beings, especially white male heterosexual males, are and the audience of white cultural Marxists can sit there flagellating themselves and telling each other how morally superior they are to everyone because they hate themselves.  (Just like Catholics really, did Marx and Engels just plagiarise Catholicism?!)

Art is supposed to be the cultural story of a people, it’s supposed to connect them to each other, their history and identity and inspire them to do great things and to express love for nobility, strength and beauty.  It’s not a political tool for cultural Marxists to depress and demoralise society.  Somebody tell the cultural Marxists this, please.

Racial Infantilism

When cultural Marxists talk about foreign people, it is generally terms of foreigners are helpless victims and white people are greedy oppressors.  This script seems to come straight out of Soviet propaganda pamphlets, and while it’s good to know that cultural Marxists are literate, indeed they do read an awful lot, it is disheartening that they don’t realise how completely racist they are being when they do this.

Cultural Marxists see the world in terms of victims and oppressors.  Victims are blameless and powerless to help themselves because they’re oppressed while oppressors are inexcusably guilty and are the only ones with agency.  They cannot see the shades of grey in any international conflict or discourse.  Instead they sit there trying to figure out which side is the victim and which side is the oppressor.  They are about as insightful about relationships as a spoiled princess.  By casting the non-white group as the victims all the time denies them agency, it denies them their human dignity.   It says that they are powerless over their circumstances and they need to be rescued.  Some of them might like being treated like this, that is being treated like children, (“look, if I just say that’s racist they give me money to shut up!”) most people realised that being treated like a child is humiliating and degrading, but not a cultural Marxist.

I prefer to focus on what people do, not on the colour of their skin, but cultural Marxists appear obsessed with skin colour and assigning innate privileges to different skin colours.  There is no such thing as white privilege, just white people who respect and look after themselves better, on average, than non-whites.  The idea of white privilege handicaps non-whites who into thinking, “it doesn’t matter how hard I try, or if I take responsibility over my life and decisions because I don’t have something that white people supposedly naturally have.”  With that attitude how are non-whites going to get out of poverty?  Can you see how racist that is?  Kindly tell the cultural Marxists to stop talking about other ethnic groups like they’re children and white people like abusive parents.  Much of the human world isn’t about relationships of dominance and submission, it’s instead about mutual respect and co-operation.  Concepts foreign to Marx’s dialectical antagonist approach.

Cultural Colonialism

Cultural Marxists love to talk about diversity.  What they often mean is everyone, every country and every community conforming to cultural Marxist ideologies.  Globalisation is about standardising culture, ethnicity, laws, values and thinking on a global scale.  No one is allowed to have their own ideas, opinions, culture or property.  Political correctness means conformity.  Absolute conformity to the point where having your own opinion is a type of personality disorder.  The idea of a country, group or individual wanting to preserve their cultural, social or history identity or character terrifies them.  No, you need to agree with them, because if you’re not with them, you’re against them.

This isn’t just happening in the West where white people are being deprived of their history and cultural identity by cultural Marxists, but everyone around the world cultural Marxists are promoting policies of assimilating and converting all non-Western countries into cultural Marxist states.  The Chinese have to conform to our social viewpoints, the Indians have to live the way we tell them to, the Africans must adopt our policies, the Arabs must adopt our perspectives on religion.  Every woman on Earth needs to be a feminist whether she wants to be one or not.  Cultural Marxism is a disease, trying to spread to new hosts (other societies) to infect them.  It doesn’t care that the people have their own traditions, values and ways of life, they must conform for their own good because there is no alternative to cultural Marxism.


To conclude, the topic of cultural Marxism is a vast one that affects everyone on this planet in some way.  I have only touched the surface of all of these issues here, but by writing this article as an introductory piece to the series of articles I want to write I’m hoping to bring some perspective to how diverse issues which appear on the surface to be unrelated are in fact intimately linked with the intellectual disease that is cultural Marxism.  I firmly believe that where there is only one voice, there is no freedom and that this extends to cultures and nations.  If there is only one central world government and one culture, there will be no individual freedom and that even if we all feel safe in such a world, it would be the reduction of life from living to merely surviving.  Fortunately, there are lots of solutions and ways we can strengthen ourselves to find both happiness and satisfaction in this adventure called life.

Tuesday, 18 February 2014


Cuba's Mythical Victory

The Myth

In 1988 the Angolan Minister of Defence and other official Angolan and Cuban sources claimed that a South African offensive consisting of up to 9,000 troops with 500 tanks, 600 artillery field guns and scores of aircraft had attacked the town of Cuito Cuanavale in Angola. According to their version the attack had failed thanks to a valiant defense effort by Cuban and Angolan troops, and the South Africans had lost 50 aircraft, 47 tanks and hundreds of men.

The Cuban propaganda version of this "heroic battle" was widely believed in the west, and it was not until after the war had ended that the facts emerged. By the end of 1987, when the Cubans and Angolans were supposed to have achieved their great victory, they were already suing for peace in Angola, with their Soviet backers openly stating that the war there could not be won. In the negotiations that followed, one of the conditions of the Cubans was that they be allowed to make an honourable withdrawal from the war, an unusual demand to be made by a victorious army, to say the least. The fact is, the Cubans knew that they were losing but did not want to withdraw from Angola in disgrace. The South Africans, who had been the real victors in the Cuito campaign, realised that making the full facts known at that delicate stage in the peace negotiations would humiliate the Cubans and their Soviet backers and perhaps spur them into sending yet more troops to Angola in an effort to save their reputation. Making the Cubans look ridiculous would serve no useful purpose.

However, once the Cuban and Soviet involvement in the war had ended and the South Africans had withdrawn their troops, it did not take long for the real story of the battle to emerge.

Origin of the War

When Angola became independent from Portuguese rule in 1975 there was no elected government, and a pro-Communist guerrilla movement, the MPLA, became the de facto rulers, opposed by the smaller anti-Communist movements, the FNLA and Unita. When Cuban "advisers" began to enter the country to support the MPLA the South African Army responded by sending small combat groups into the war to assist the FNLA and Unita and at the same time eliminate the threat from SWAPO, a guerrilla group fighting to take over Namibia. During Operation Savannah in 1975 two small South African combat groups, with covert American backing, raced across Angola to the capital, Luanda, in a lightning blitzkrieg that was called off at the last moment when the Americans withdrew their political support.

In the years that followed the MPLA consolidated their hold on Angola, but at the same time Unita grew to a force of over 30,000 men which controlled most of Southern Angola and enjoyed the support of the local population. In order to counter the threat they posed to the MPLA more and more Cuban troops were brought into the country, along with Soviet advisers and huge supplies of armaments. Several offensives were attempted against Unita during the early 1980s without success. Both the Angolan Army and Air Force were expanded considerably, with more new weapons being delivered by the Soviets, including Mig-23s and Mi-25 combat helicopters.
 In 1985 Fapla sent 20 brigades southwards in their largest offensive yet and the South African government decided that the threat of Cuban, Fapla and SWAPO forces reaching the South African borders was now too real to ignore, sent a small number of troops into Angola to assist Unita. To counter the air offensive the South African Air Force also flew a number of sorties, shooting down a Mig and several Soviet helicopters, one of which was ferrying the 10 Soviet officers in charge of the offensive to Cuito. The offensive finally ground to a halt, with large numbers of Faplan soldiers dead and a considerable number of Cubans killed, which prompted Castro to raise the Cuban troop strength in Angola to around 45,000 men.

During the first half of 1986 another offensive was attempted, considerably hampered and delayed after South African special forces units sank a Cuban cargo ship in Namibe Harbour and damaged two Soviet cargo ships and several oil tanks. In June, however, the offensive slowly got under way, but then was brought to an abrupt end when Unita troops, supported by South African troops, attacked and severely crippled the vital air base at Cuito Cuanavale. Without air support the offensive crumbled and the troops were pulled back.

The New Offensive

During late 1986 and early 1987 Cuban forces in Angola prepared for yet another full-scale offensive aimed at overrunning Unita and capturing its headquarters at Jamba. After their failure in both their 1985 and 1986 offensives in support of Fapla, the Cubans were now eager to gain the initiative and prove that they were a match for the South African Defence Force and establish themselves as the "liberators" of Southern Africa.
 The Soviet Union was shipping heavy armaments into Angola daily, some of it the most modern Soviet weaponry ever seen outside the Soviet Union itself - jet fighters, tanks, helicopter-gunships, air defence missiles, radar and numerous vehicles. Most of it was delivered to Menongue, from where it was then moved on to the base at Cuito Cuanavale. This base had been chosen as the starting point for the new offensive.

Both the South Africans and Unita were left in no doubt that this enormous build-up of weapons and troops constituted preparations for the largest offensive yet attempted by the Cubans and the Angolan Army. General Magnus Malan of the SADF publicly warned that the offensive was imminent, and a Washington Post correspondent - William Claiborne - confirmed Malan's warnings after he had been allowed to see the huge Soviet arms build-up in person.

During July 1986 the South Africans implemented a limited operation designed to assist Unita to develop an anti-tank capability. At the same time the American Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Chester Crocker, was involved in peace negotiations with the Cubans and Angolans, but returned to Washington near the end of July disappointed and angry at their refusal to talk seriously about peace. Having failed in all their previous offensives, they were now obviously determined to make an all-out effort to force a military solution to the Angolan problem.
 By the end of July small-scale clashes between SADF and Faplan units were increasing, and by early August the offensive had commenced. The main Cuban/Faplan force, consisting of 16, 21, 47 and 59 Brigades of the Angolan Army, advanced towards a town called Tumpo, east of Cuito Cuanavale, while several more brigades advanced from Lucasse, supported by ground-attack aircraft, in an effort to form a two-pronged attack across the Lomba River.
 One force moved westwards, intending to capture the towns of Cangamba and Lumbala, but was stopped by Unita without South African assistance, and neither town was captured.

The second force, however, was more determined, with 16 and 21 Brigades moving eastwards and intending to swing south and advance on Mavinga, while 47 and 59 Brigades moved south in the direction of Mavinga.

A small number of South African officers were attached to the Unita forces to observe the enemy and work out a strategy for countering their offensive. When it became obvious that the offensive had begun the SADF moved a battery of 127mm multiple rocket launchers and a battery of 120mm mortars, each accompanied by an infantry company from 32 "Buffalo" Battalion, up to the front to support Unita. The size of the offensive was so great, however, that after some careful rethinking by the SADF commanders, a G-5 heavy artillery battery was sent to Mavinga for support, causing great excitement and awe among the Unita troops, who had never seen such huge guns before. A short time later 61 Mechanized Battalion Group, using Ratel armoured cars, was sent to Mavinga as a reserve.

32 "Buffalo" Battalion

South Africa's 32 Battalion was formed in 1975 from former Angolan FNLA insurgents during the struggle for control of newly-independent Angola. The FNLA was a ragtag group of guerrillas which opposed the larger, pro-Communist MPLA. Colonel Jan Breytenbach, South African Para and commander of several elite units in his career, was sent to Angola to train and organize the FNLA group. The men were formed into a new unit - 32 Battalion - officered by South Africans, and in a very short time, re-equipped with uniforms and modern weapons, were undergoing training as a COIN unit. Most of their training took place on the battlefield as they were immediately sent into action against the MPLA, SWAPO and the Cubans. The unit soon proved its worth and developed a reputation for agressiveness on the battlefield, often engaging and defeating numerically superior enemy forces. The existence of this battalion of the South African Army was kept secret for many years while it fought in the thick Angolan bush, a constant problem for the Angolan Army which all their Soviet and Cuban advisers were unable to solve. 32 Battalion was to provide the main infantry force of the SADF during the 1986 campaign.

61 Mechanised Battalion

61 Mech was the only conventional SADF unit to be used during this campaign and consisted of infantry with a total of 55 Ratel armoured cars of different types. The battalion had no tanks, but had been engaged in the border war for the past 10 years and had acquired a formidable reputation.

G-5 Guns

Undoubtedly one of the most effective elements of the SADF involvement in Angola was the use made of the South African-built G-5 guns. Acknowledged to be the best long-range artillery in the world at that time, the G-5s with their range of 40 kilometres were able to cover a large area of the battlefield. Not yet in full production, only 16 were taken into Angola, but their high accuracy and 155mm base-bleed shells made them the most potent weapon in the South African armory.
The Offensive Begins

10 September 1987

On 10 September 21 Brigade sent 2 battalions with 5 T-55 tanks across the river, using a mobile bridge-layer. South African observers, watching the crossing, were amazed at the over-confident behaviour of the enemy, with infantrymen standing around casually, hands in pockets, watching the crossing. The South African reconnaissance force consisted of 4 Ratel-90 anti-tank armoured cars and 240 infantrymen in 30 Casspir infantry combat vehicles.

The South Africans were ordered to wait and see what Fapla would do. When an armoured car began to roll over the bridge, the South Africans went into action.

An anti-tank missile destroyed the armoured car and killed the infantrymen around it. A second missile destroyed the giant Soviet GAZ bridge-layer. The South Africans then concentrated on the T-55 tanks which were beginning to move westwards, and knocked out 3 of them within minutes. The remaining 2 immediately retreated. Artillery fire was called in from the South African G-5 guns situated some distance behind the South African lines, and by the end of the day 1 Fapla battalion had been completely destroyed, leaving the remainder of the enemy force to retreat back across the river in confusion.

13 September 1987

Three days later, on 13 September, Fapla sent 2 battalions of 59 Brigade with T-55 tanks across the river in a second attempt to establish a bridgehead. The South Africans and Unita again attacked immediately, the Ratel-90s firing anti-personnel shells which cut a swathe of destruction through the massed enemy infantry. From the Casspirs infantrymen poured machine-gun and rifle fire into the exposed enemy. The Angolans started to retreat, but were exposed on open ground, with a stretch of marshland hampering their path back to the river. Within a short space of time over 200 Fapla soldiers lay dead.
 The SADF/Unita force started mopping up the last groups of men left when the tanks suddenly joined in, causing chaos and sending the lightly-armoured Ratels and Casspirs fleeing in all directions. Once the South Africans had found cover in the bush, however, they began to fire anti-tank (HEAT) shells at the tanks, which were at a disadvantage with their long gun barrels in the bush. The Ratels, realising they had the advantages of speed and manoeuvrability, began to circle round the tanks, enticing them into chasing the armoured cars in ever-smaller cricles until the Ratels were able to come in behind the tanks and fire. By the end of the engagement 5 tanks had been destroyed and over 250 Fapla soldiers killed, for the loss of 8 dead and 3 destroyed armoured cars on the SADF side.

The South Africans, after their initial shock at encountering the tanks, had adapted their tactics and proved that their armoured cars could cope with tanks by a combination of fast movement and accurate shooting, tactics reminiscent of those used by the Boers against the British over 80 years earlier.

14 to 23 September 1987

After the first series of clashes had taken place the South Africans were ordered not to cross the Lomba River, but to establish a line behind it to block the Angolan advance. The G5 heavy guns continued to pound the Angolans mercilessly, while the South African Air Force flew missions over the enemy to eliminate their anti-aircraft installations. At the same time Fapla artillery was bombarding the South African positions with mortars and heavy artillery.

21 Brigade continued to pile up supplies on their side of the Lomba, but the South African bombardments hampered them severely in their efforts to resume their advance. South African Recces (Special Forces, the SADF equivalent of SAS or Green Berets) kept the enemy under constant observation from hidden vantage points in the bush, often no more than 50 yards from the enemy positions. Throughout the campaign these Recces sat for days and even weeks in their observation posts, guiding the G5 artillery fire onto Fapla positions. The enemy knew they were close by, but were never able to locate them.

47 Brigade had also been slowed down in its advance by the South African artillery and air strikes. It was barely moving a kilometre per day, and the South Africans were slowly drawing it into a "killing ground" of their choice.
 There was a brief interlude in the fighting when South Africa and Angola finally agreed to exchange prisoners - a South African Recce, Captain Wynand du Toit, captured by Fapla in 1985, was exchanged for 170 Fapla soldiers captured by the SADF and Unita. A couple of Dutch arms smugglers, captured in South Africa, were included in the trade. According to Amnesty International sources, the 170 Faplan soldiers were taken to the Angolan capital, Luanda, where they were all executed by the Angolans for having failed in their duty...

In view of this it was not surprising to the South African troops to find that many captured Fapla soldiers expressed an interest in joining Unita, or asked about the possibility of enlisting in the SADF!

47 Brigade, by now unable to retreat and desperate to join up with the other brigades, made an attempt to link up with 59 Brigade. The South Africans sent their Ratels in again to attack the enemy from the West. They had 250 men available to attack a force of over 1000 men with heavy weapons. The SAAF dropped fragmentation bombs on the Fapla positions and then 61 Mech manoeuvred behind them. The going was rough in the bush and they ended up on the enemy's flank instead of directly behind them. After a sharp engagement in the bush, the Ratels withdrew again because they simply could not see the enemy and were drawing a lot of artillery fire.

59 Brigade began to dig in and received welcome supplies and reinforcements from 21 Brigade, which had now succeeded in laying a mobile bridge over the Cunzumbia River. The SADF, worried now that 47 Brigade would manage to escape back across the river while 59 Brigade pushed forward against the thin South African defence line, decided it was time to close the trap they had been preparing.

3 October 1987 - the Decisive Battle

On 2 October the South African Recces reported that 47 Brigade had managed to construct a wooden road across the marshes which were blocking their retreat to the Lomba River. Trucks, missile carriers, armoured cars and tanks were busy assembling at the treeline, preparing to make an orderly retreat across the road.

The Recces watched from their vantage points in nearby trees and called in artillery fire on Fapla while the SADF combat groups worked furiously to get ready and into position.

The first Fapla vehicles to try to cross were Soviet Sam-9s. One crossed to safety but the Recces guided artillery fire onto the second as it tried to cross, destroying it and effectively blocking the bridge. The Fapla troops sent a T-55 tank to try and move it out of the way, but without success. Every time Fapla tried to make a move the Recces would call in highly accurate artillery salvoes. For 48 hours without sleep or rest the Recces stood guard over Fapla's escape route, calling in artillery fire at the slightest movement, until at last they heard the distant rumble that announced the arrival of the armoured cars of 61 Mechanised Battalion.

The Ratels of 61 Mech had a variety of armaments, from infantry carriers with 20mm guns to the tank-busting 90mm gun. Unita troops had by now positioned themselves to the south-east of 47 Brigade in case they tried to break away in that direction.
 Fapla artillery began to bombard the approaching Ratels and Migs flew overhead to lend support and cover 47 Brigade's escape. The Ratels went in to attack. Fapla, accustomed to seeing Unita beat a hasty retreat whenever their tanks appeared, tried the same tactic and sent their tanks towards the SADF positions. To their dismay the South Africans' reaction was the exact opposite - they attacked. The Ratels raced for the tanks, surrounding them and dodging back and forth until they could get behind them and shoot at the comparatively vulnerable rear ends of the tanks.
 Major Laurence Maree, second-in-command of 61 Mech, later told the British journalist and author, Fred Bridgland:

"I can't tell you how much courage it takes in a Ratel driver and gunner when a tank is charging towards them to summon up the will to stop still for long enough to stabilise their firing platform and get their round off. [Unlike a T54/55 tank, which has built-in stabilisers and can fire on the move, a Ratel, like other armoured cars, can only fire from a static position]. Of course, as soon as they'd fired, off they sprinted like Turbo-charged hares. One of our guys died that afternoon facing down a T-55 in his Ratel. A 100mm shell from the tank skipped up from the sandy ground and went right through the turret. The Ratel commander, Lieutenant Hind, was terribly wounded and he died later. We had two others very seriously wounded that day, and another three with light wounds. The medics just pulled the shrapnel out of those who were slightly hurt, cleaned up the wounds, and they went straight back into combat."

The Fapla troops, although outgunning the South Africans and outnumbering them 4 to 1, began to lose their nerve and one of the battalions suddenly made a break towards the river. They streamed across the open grassland towards the river in an undisciplined mob and the South Africans brought down MRL fire and high-explosive mortar shells on them. A second battalion also broke and ran for the river, with the Ratels chasing them. Approximately 100 vehicles were now jostling to try and reach the bridge by way of the wooden road. Recces directed artillery fire from the G-5s onto them, causing havoc. The area was now a wasteland of shattered trees and burnt grass from the shells and shrapnel from both sides.

Migs piloted by Cubans flew some 60 sorties that day, dropping bombs and trying to strafe the South African positions, but they were wildly inaccurate and had little effect.

Fapla tanks made an effort to recover some of the abandoned vehicles, but were themselves destroyed by the pinpoint accuracy of the G-5 artillery fire. When the firing finally stopped at the end of the day over 600 Fapla soldiers lay dead on that stretch of open ground and 127 Fapla vehicles stood destroyed or abandoned near the river.

On the morning of 4 October the South Africans were able to survey the remnants on the battlefield. Recovery teams were sent in to salvage whatever was still usable and the SADF generals were delighted to hear that their troops were able to salvage intact one of the Sam-8 missile systems, complete with missiles, radar and logistics vehicles, the first example of this highly-effective Soviet weapon ever to be captured by a western country.

The remnants of 21 and 59 Brigades had joined forces and were trying to reorganize. A few firefights broke out as the SADF and Unita troops moved across the battlefield to salvage equipment. A few inexperienced Unita soldiers almost caused havoc as they attempted to drive off the undamaged tanks.
 The South Africans intercepted messages from Russian commanders ordering the Fapla Migs and troops to make an all-out effort to destroy the abandoned equipment, but by then the South Africans had moved the Sam-8 system back behind their positions and had it well camouflaged. Unita later tried to claim the Sam-8 for itself with a view to passing it on to the Americans, but South Africa, recalling the way America had abandoned its allies in Angola, refused and retained the missile system for its own arms research.

October to December 1987 - The Last Phase

After the battle was over mopping up operations continued on both sides. South African observers watched in disgust as Fapla soldiers shot many of their own wounded where they lay because they were unable to evacuate them or give them medical care. At the end of the day the South African commander, Deon Ferreira, sent a message to HQ that their mission had been accomplished and that the Angolan/Cuban advance on Mavinga had been stopped. His new orders were to clear all remnants of the enemy forces from the eastern side of the River Cuito and establish positions from which they would be able to prevent any further crossings into Unita territory. No mention was made of capturing Cuito Cuanavale itself. The SADF did, however, want to be in a position from which they could shell the airfield and neutralise the base as a starting point for a new offensive. Cuito allowed the Cuban Migs easy access to Unita territory and if it was destroyed the Migs would have to move 175 kilometres to the west.

The G5 artillery groups were moved up and commenced bombarding Cuito. The SAAF sent in 4 Mirages as a decoy and while the Migs were being rolled out of their reinforced concrete hangars the G-5s pounded the runway with shells. Within a short space of time the airfield was destroyed and the remaining Migs were forced to move back to Menongue.

Stinger missiles were also used to good effect by Unita and two Cuban pilots were taken prisoner after their Mig had been shot down.
 The Cuban/Faplan offensive had failed. Later the Cubans tried to save face and boost their demoralized troops by claiming loudly that they had won the "Battle for Cuito Cuanavale", which they claimed to have successfully defended against all South African attacks!
 Throughout the campaign the South Africans, mindful of the fact that they were involved in an undeclared war and without allies in the west, refrained from making any public statements on the progress of the war. This gave the Cubans and Angolans the advantage in the propaganda war. The SADF could not reveal that it only had a small combat force of less than 3000 lightly-armed troops in Angola, as this would have revealed their weaknesses to the enemy. The superior training and tactics of the SADF had convinced the Cubans and Angolans that they were facing a large, heavily-armed force.

As Chester Crocker later wrote:

"In early October the Soviet-Fapla offensive was smashed at the Lomba River near Mavinga. It turned into a headlong retreat over the 120 miles back to the primary launching point at Cuito Cuanavale. In some of the bloodiest battles of the entire civil war, a combined force of some 8,000 Unita fighters and 4,000 SADF troops destroyed one Fapla brigade and mauled several others out of a total Fapla force of some 18,000 engaged in the three-pronged offensive. Estimates of Fapla losses ranged upward of 4,000 killed and wounded. This offensive had been a Soviet conception from start to finish. Senior Soviet officers played a central role in its execution. Over a thousand Soviet advisers were assigned to Angola in 1987 to help with Moscow's largest logistical effort to date in Angola: roughly $1.5 billion in military hardware was delivered that year. Huge quantities of Soviet equipment were destroyed or fell into Unita and SADF hands when Fapla broke into a disorganized retreat. The 1987 military campaign represented a stunning humiliation for the Soviet Union, its arms and its strategy. It would take Fapla a year, or maybe two, to recover and regroup. Moreover the Angolan military disaster threatened to go from bad to worse. As of mid-November, the Unita/SADF force had destroyed the Cuito Cuanavale airfield and pinned down thousands of Fapla's best remaining units clinging onto the town's defensive perimeters."

The results of the campaign up to April 1988 were 4,785 killed on the Cuban/Faplan side, with 94 tanks and hundreds of combat vehicles destroyed, against 31 South Africans killed in action, 3 tanks destroyed (SADF tanks entered the war after the Lomba River campaign) and 11 SADF armoured cars and troop carriers lost. A total of 9 Migs were destroyed and only 1 SAAF Mirage shot down.

After 13 years in Angola the Cubans had still not achieved their aim of destroying Unita and marching into Namibia as "liberators". They had badly underestimated the South Africans and discovered to their cost that they were facing highly-trained, battle-hardened troops. If they had taken the trouble to examine South Africa's military history, they might perhaps have paused for thought at the fact that the forefathers of these troops, the Boers, had held the full might of the British Empire at bay during the Boer War, when 450,000 British troops took three years to subdue a force of little more than 20,000 Boers.

Source -

Monday, 17 February 2014

Countering the Cultural Marxist 'No Borders' claims

Leading on from our 'No Borders' argument, it is important when arguing your point in public to always be likeable, non-agresssive and to empathise. Try using things like “I used to believe the stuff you believed too, but then I started asking questions instead of just following the crowd”. And “We actually agree (even if you don't) on more than we disagree.” A good one to use is to state that you agree with someone then say “but” and put the complete opposite point. This makes them think you are agreeing with them (their ego is important to them) when in fact you are destroying their argument. 

Responses to Marxist arguments #1

Marxist slogan:

“No Borders. Borders are simply man made divisions that are detrimental to human freedom.”


But surely borders are necessary to all creatures, they are not man made, they are made by nature and exist all around us, mostly for our benefit. 


“Borders are man made, they are not natural. They only exist to segregate and protect the rich countries from to poor. “


So if you don't agree with borders, then you don't agree that poor countries should have borders either, to protect them from the rich? Strange. You don't agree that Tibet should have a border? You don't think the genocide of Tibet being carried out by super rich Chinese billionaires is a crime? If there are no borders then surely any country can invade any other and take what it wants with impunity. That means the richest country would rule the world. 

Marxist (falls back on plan B without answering any of your points, as usual, repeats mantra...) 

“Borders are evil. The are just there to protect property and territory."


Not right. Borders, territory and 'property' are a basic part of natural dignity. If you take away borders you take away dignity. That would surely be vile. We all have borders. The first we call our personal space. Nobody likes it when any stranger comes into that uninvited. Beyond that we have a border called our body. Touch it and that is an assault. Are you saying that thugs should be free to assault people? That would be the rule of the violent mob. Surely you want to protect the weak? [Now using his distorted sense of righteousness against him]. So you support the rule of the violent mob? If you penetrate a person's body border, depending how it is either rape, wounding or murder. Are you justifying rape and murder? You must be. Are you saying women should not be able to object to being violated [now using his 'feminist' tendencies against him.]


“No I'm not saying that. I'm talking about 'property and territory'. 


So you agree with intimate borders. So you do not believe in 'no borders' per se, just 'property and territory borders..... And property and exclusive territory are evil? 


“Errrrr yes [Realising he is now agreeing with borders, but trying to pretend it is a misunderstanding rather than his inability to properly understand his own ideology]. 


So why is it natural for animals have a 'territory', usually their food source, which they protect if borders are not natural? Are animals capitalists who are greedy? You see if they fail to protect their territory, they lose their food source and their young die. Are you confusing greed and love? Are you advocating that animals/humans should neglect their young? I'll bet you have not just a body a territory that you object to being violated, but also a 'home' territory, where you live for instance. Do you leave all of the doors and windows open so you can be burgled? If you were burgled would you not object? [he will struggle to answer these questions so if he does not answer, answer for him]. If you got home and you found your door open, your belongings gone and some fat smelly stranger in your bed, having eaten all you food and pissed on your floor, would you not object? Of course you would. Your territory is your privacy, without privacy you have no dignity.


“I mean, like property stolen from others.” [still avoiding the points]


Good so now you agree [he doesn't as he still can't see sense, but he is now to confused to argue back, if he has not run away yet] that borders are a good thing, where they protect privacy, dignity and our children's future. Give me an example of one that does not? 

Marxist: [Now he is really stuck. He will be trying to change the argument without answering your points]

“But most borders are about protecting the property of the rich from the poor.” 


[Firstly repeat the arguments above and emphasise that he cannot argue against them, but in a way so as to make it sound that you both agree. Then move onto the 'property' thing.]
So you think that the protection of property is wrong. Presumably because as a Marxist you think 'all property is theft', as Karl Marx said? You believe that the rich get their property by exploiting the poor, and should have that property 're-distributed'? You believe that the ownership of property is wrong. 




Good. That's a nice car you drive. Give me your iPhone.

Saturday, 15 February 2014

What is Fascism?

Political radicals often shout, "Fascist!", "Fascist!" at anyone who doesn't agree with their views. The term is especially popular among college students. But do such people actually know what Fascism is? Have they studied it?

Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social ideology. There are a few different "flavors" of Fascism, but basically they all come down to the following.
First and foremost, Fascism is an economic system in which a nation's government plays a central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a whole and the people of the nation - this is the axiom which determines everything within the economic aspect of Fascism.
In other words, the government asks, "Is XYZ Enterprises good for our nation and our people?" If yes, it's approved. If no, it's not approved. When they ask, "Is it good?", they mean, "Is XYZ Enterprises good for the workers, do they pay a fair wage, do they produce a product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc???" For example, a pornography company would not be allowed because pornography corrupts people generally and exploits & degrades women particularly. Also, "free" trade agreements (such as what the U.S. has with China) would never be allowed because such trade agreements result in companies sending jobs overseas (where labor is dirt cheap). Such an activity, of course, would undermine a nation's labor class. This is entirely unacceptable and thus not allowed under a Fascist economic model.
Fascism is based on free enterprise - but with constraints (the primary constraint being, "Is the particular economic activity in question good for our nation/people?"). Also, a businessman can become wealthy in a Fascist country, and the government has no objection to this (this is in stark contrast to Communism). Fascism also encourages private ownership of property (again, in stark contrast to Communism where private property is not allowed).

In a nutshell, Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, "Go ahead and start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don't produce any products or services which damage our nation and our nation's people... and make sure you treat your workers fair and pay them a living wage. If you don't follow these rules, we'll shut you down."

With regard to banking, usury is not allowed under Fascism. The government tightly controls all aspects of monetary policy, including terms of lending. The government issues/prints money and lends it interest free, as needed, to grow the economy and ultimately serve the citizens.
The above is the economic aspect of Fascism. There is also a cultural/social aspect to Fascism as well. Under Fascism, government plays a key role in monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music, education, etc in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor, and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts society.

With regard to political legislation introduced by a Fascist government, the same criteria is applied - "Will this proposed law benefit the nation as a whole and the people of our nation?"
A few other things to mention. Fascism encourages respect for the environment as Fascists understand that nature is the giver of life and thus must be preserved. Contrast this environmental philosophy with that of Capitalism which too often takes the short term view with regard to natural resources and foolishly believes that pollution is a necessary byproduct of profit. Also, and somewhat related to environmental issues, Fascism holds very progressive views with regard to animal rights.

Also, under Fascism, if a person doesn't like things, he/she can leave the country. Contrast this with Communism where if you don't like things, you better keep your mouth shut. And, of course, there is no option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a re-education camp where you'll be brainwashed to accept the Communist system. And if you still resist, you'll probably be killed. Again, there is no leaving. Submit or suffer the consequences.

Further, Fascism holds women in very high regard. Women are the carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and well read. Women are encouraged to pursue their interests and have a career but only if a career won't interfere with their family's needs; family comes first, always. Women are encouraged to be strong yet feminine. Consistent with these ideas, Fascist art often portrays women as heroic and even goddess-like.

In short, Fascism is a form of government & social system which authentically serves the interests of the people and nation as a whole. The word "Fascism" comes from the Italian word "fascio" meaning "the group" or more specifically, "in consideration of the group." Fascism is rooted in the notion that people must stay true to two mental concepts throughout their lives: 1) the individual's needs (themselves) and, 2) the group's needs (their nation)... always evaluating how their individual actions affect the group. Thus Fascism rejects the self-centered "me me me" mentality so common under Capitalism. For example, in a Fascist nation each person is expected to maintain a healthy diet & lifestyle. For if not, they may become seriously ill and thus require expensive health care; this would negatively impact the group (i.e., they'd become a financial burden on the nation).

Continuing this line of thought, under Fascism all people of one's ethnicity are considered the greater family of that person. Hence, a Fascist nation is thought of as one giant family of several million people. Therefore, just as one mustn't do anything to hurt their brother or sister in their immediate family, under Fascism one mustn't do anything which would hurt the nation/group (i.e., the greater family). This is the essence of Fascism - a strong consideration of the group balanced with individualism. 
During the German Third Reich, the NSDAP (i.e., "Nazis") followed all aspects of the above described Fascist system.

ASIDE: Although the economic aspect of Fascism is free-market based, Fascism is NOT Capitalism. Many on the political left wrongly equate Fascism with Capitalism. Again, Fascism is NOT Capitalism. Allow me to briefly explain: the primary goal of Capitalism is profit. On the other hand, the primary goal of Fascism is the well being of a nation's citizens and well being of the nation as a whole. In a purist-type Capitalist country (i.e., Super-Capitalism) almost nothing can interfere with maximizing profits - not workers, not the environment... almost nothing. Even when a Capitalist country starts out with tight government regulations, it invariably moves towards Laissez-faire economics (i.e., Super-Capitalism) by way of less and less government regulation. Human greed drives this transformation and ultimately the working class suffer via lower wages or loss of employment altogether if their job is, say, transferred overseas (e.g., to China) where labor is dirt cheap. Capitalists believe that immense wealth at the top will "trickle down" to the masses i.e., that everything will magically work itself out. A certain amount of wealth does "trickle down" but, too often, the worker and environment suffer. As just one example, tens of millions of American manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas during the past two decades (Capitalist so-called "free" trade policies have allowed for such outsourcing of jobs).  Of course then, just as Fascists reject Communism, they also reject Capitalism.

Source -

Only Absolute Evil Would Want 'No Borders'

No borders is a typical left wing chant used to pretend that multiculture is something which is righteous. Why does it lend a pseudo righteous legitimacy to multiculture and why do I use the word ‘pseudo’? And why does it achieve the opposite effect to the one that it projects? Why is it wrong?

Well it is like this. Firstly it goes against nature. Not just human nature but Mother nature. The major cause of the catastrophic failure of socialism has been the very fact that it presents a pseudo religious dogma which is fundamentally flawed at all levels. Unfortunately the fanatical followers of the godless religion of socialism will viciously attack anyone who points out it’s flaws. They are even starting to introduce, through ‘defamation’ and the perversely named ‘hate speech’ laws to outlaw any heresy against their fanatical godless religion. They have introduced perversely named ‘human rights’ inquisitions to ensure that all dissidents are silenced and now control the press and the media to ensure the persecution is deemed to be ‘necessary’ and right. They usually use scaremongering such as “they are Nazis and will want to kill six million Jews” or “they hate black/Asian/gay etc. to cynically manipulate gullible majority and minority groups into supporting the socialist way. They use the Stalinist doctrine of ‘no platform’ to ensure any words that might expose their lies cannot be heard. 

So let’s talk about ‘no borders’ and Mother Nature. Anyone who is more than just a casual observer of nature will notice that all creatures have ‘borders’. They have territory. They will defend that territory, often with their lives. Why? Well if they lose it, not only do they die, but so does their family and often, their species. Almost all extinctions (other than climate change) on this planet have come as a result of a creature having another, more successful, or less successful but more aggressive, creature/creatures move into their territory. Territory performs two main functions in nature. Firstly it is the food source. Lose that you starve and die. Secondly it is the ‘safe haven’, the place where the creature can safely rear it’s young and protect them from outside attackers. I look into my back garden. I have a Robin Redbreast who I keep my seed feeder full for. He/She sings for me and I rather like the presence of this little creature. But I do notice that it is extremely territorial. It does not suffer the fools of the bird kingdom easily. It allows other birds transit in my garden, but that is it. But I am also wise enough to understand that it is not an ‘evil racist’ and it has no ideals on killing six million Jews. In fact Robin is actually doing something extremely selfless and is showing a form of love and duty for which we seldom credit anything in the animal/bird kingdom. Robin sings his/her little heart out because Robin is telling others to stay away. Robin fights other birds and protects the territory not out of any form of vanity, but because since time began, Robin knew that was the duty allotted. If Robin does not fulfil that duty then Robin’s gene strain will die out. His/her eggs will never hatch or even if they do, the fledglings will be dead after meeting the new predator/competitor. I choose my words very carefully. You see species do not often die out as a result of meeting predators. They more often die out as a result of failing to take the steps necessary to ward off a competitor. A predator will eat you. A competitor for your food source is at the same time far more deadly and far more stealthy. Most creatures do not realise this until it is too late. Sounds familiar? Cicero’s ‘enemy within’ and Kiplings ‘Stranger at my gate’ comes to mind. 

Sing little Robin, if you love your children.

Now let us look at ‘human nature’. I remember having this conversation with a feminist who at one and the same time was advocating ‘no borders’ and protesting about men (all of us apparently) being rapists. I put it to her that perhaps she might like to review her stance on ‘no borders’. You see it’s like this. When people shout about ‘no borders’ they feel as though they are being righteous. But they are not. Far from it. They are simply demonstrating and inability to use extended logical progression. In other words they are either too stupid or too lazy (or both) to think about what they are saying. They are reciting a soundbite without any thought for the consequences of the actions required by that soundbite. A world without any borders would be a living hell. Actually we all have and all want borders. Let us look at the micro level first. All humans (all creatures) have a border around them. We tend to call it our ‘personal space/aura’ or whatever. It is an invisible border which we maintain as it is part of our dignity. Indeed borders, and the right to maintain them are one of the most fundamental rights and dignities that all creatures have, not just mankind. If someone comes into your personal space, they either do so with your express permission (friends/family etc.), your implied permission (brushing against on a busy street, bar, train etc.) or without your permission when you either remove them, get them to remove themselves, or remove yourself and your ‘aura’. In short you maintain the integrity of your ‘border’. 

Taking that one step further. If the unwelcome person starts to touch you then you would seriously object, and this, depending on the touching, could even amount to an assault, violence or sexual interference. At that point our survival instinct normally kicks in and we will even respond (quite rightly) with extreme violence to protect our borders. ‘Self Defence’ is a well established principle in the law of all civilised countries. To deny self defence would be to tell people that if they are about to be raped/murdered, that they would be in the wrong to fight back. That would be perverse. Now think again about that radical feminist and just how she would react if she were walking home on her own late at night and a strange man decided to start touching her, ‘invade her borders’, in whatever way. She might want to review her ideas on ‘no borders’….. She may consider that with ‘no borders’, she would have no dignity and no integrity and no freedom at all. ‘No borders’ is a license for ever tyrant, thug and pervert to take what he or she wants. Would that feminist consider herself as being selfish for objecting to being raped or sexually assaulted? I said ‘tyrant, thug and pervert’. It is unsurprising, looking at their membership, that the left wing support ‘no borders’. 
Now let’s move on from there. We will not only defend our own dignity but we will defend the dignity of those whom we love too. This usually starts with family. “Mess with my daughter…”. But this is not only by interference by assault, but by defamation, fraud, theft etc. we will (again quite rightly) defend our loved ones and we protect them from outsiders who may harm them. I say ‘may’ and again I choose my words carefully. Because we wish to protect our loved ones we err on the side of caution. That is how important the border is. We make an invisible border around them where we take no chances as to whom we let in. We will even act together as a family to defend that border. Within that border we deal with our own problems and we have confidences (secrets) and experiences which we do not disclose outside. We say ‘blood is thicker than water’, and it is. A family unit is in effect a microcosm of the nation. But surely we allow friends in I hear you say. We do, but under very strict and close conditions, often unconsciously agreed within the family unit. But if you go out for a family dinner, and a total stranger decides to come and sit at your table, he/she may be a very nice person, you may entertain them a while, but you would be a fool to let them into your family confidences, and you certainly would be unlikely to let them come home with you and live in your house and take all that you have. Your house is your family’s immediate territory. It is just a part of that ‘safe haven’. All civilised legal systems understand the concept of burglary. A dwelling and the integrity of that dwelling are essentials of basic human dignity. NOBODY enters without permission and if they do so it is an extremely serious crime. I wonder how many people who shout about ‘no borders’ would not object to being raped or burgled. 

Now let us move on from there. Beyond families we have extended families and communities. In Britain up until the advent of the Windrush these communities had evolved organically and effectively the communities had become large families, with similar outlooks and functions. Neighbours looking out for each other. Marrying the girl/boy from back home. Going to the same school etc. etc. Outsiders would sometimes come in and even integrate. But never did they form their own competing communities in opposition as that was definitely NOT allowed. They would never even be close to achieving the numbers. Those who did immigrate would fit in pretty quickly. They knew the consequences of not doing so. People lived closer to nature then. They understood that forming competing communities would cause friction, tension, and eventually lead to strife. Kings have lost their crowns and even their heads for just that reason. So it was up to all to protect the border. It is estimated that Queen Elizabeth the first issued the ‘Expulsion of the Blackamores’ order as a result of there being but a handful of foreigners in the country. In those days Monarchs feared the people and were rightly cautious. It was not ‘racist’. It was simply maintaining the territory for the good of those within. The good of the people was deemed so important that absolutely no chances were taken. Those without could maintain their own territory. 

So what we have now is a situation where we have a series of governments, without any democratic mandate, ensuring ‘no borders’. Our open door immigration system effectively means we have no border whatsoever. Our armed forces (whose senior officers need to face charges of treason and cowardice) are clearly being diverted in foreign wars that are of no relevance to the taxpayers at all. The first duty of a nation’s armed forces is to defend that nation’s borders, not ponce around the globe playing ‘world police’. They have failed in their duty.

And the result. “One World, living in peace….”. Wrong. I spent 16 years in Britain’s armed forces. Putting competing communities next to each other is not a recipe for peace. It is a blueprint for catastrophic strife and humanitarian disaster. It is only a matter of time. The bloody and violent process of nation building starts all over again. Human nature takes over. 

The reality is that homogenous, safe, stable and monocultural societies are more peaceful, law abiding and productive. They are less dependent on others. In short, they look after each other. Anybody who wanted to destroy that homogeneity would introduce ‘no borders’ and multiculture. In short ‘multiculture’ which ‘no borders’ is designed to facilitate, was designed to fail. It is designed to destroy the peaceful, law abiding, organic natural state. The Nation. In order to create ‘globalisation’ nations have to be destroyed. When I was a child ‘wanting to rule the world’ was the aim of all tyrants. Now the evil ones have respun themselves into nice fluffy ‘one worlders’. And unwittingly, the inadequate pseudo intellectual righteousness seekers chant their mantras. 

People think that if there are no nations then there will be no wars. Rubbish. Look around the globe. You do not need to be a nation to start a war. Independent nations are normally the least likely to get involved in wars. One reason that we are given for being members of the EU is that ‘it will be less likely that there will be war in Europe’….. Sounds plausible but when exposed to even the mildest logical scrutiny this is rubbish. The EU is now funding wars all around the globe. In a fit of political comedy to rival Obama’s award, it recently was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And it is not just the EU. In fact every major catastrophic war we have been involved in, since (and including) the Crusades, has been as a result of being part of a big stupid international allegiance. From the Catholic Church, to the League of Nations and beyond. And even worse, those alliances have often led us to fight on the wrong side and support tyranny. Lives wasted in their millions. Incomprehensible misery caused by internationalism. But the ‘no borders’ lobby spout internationalism from every orifice. God help our children if they assassinate Archduke Ferdinand in some Balkan state that nobody has heard of…. Oh I forgot, they did. Internationalism murdering millions again. The fact is that nationalism has led to far less loss of life than internationalism. “Hitler” I hear you say. Well think again. You may consider that ‘Hitler’ only became a problem when he went from national socialism to international socialism. If you don’t think he was and internationalist, ask the Polish, or any of the other 32 countries he got a bit ‘international’ with. Whilst he remained a nationalist he was almost universally praised, including by Winston Churchill. 
“Wars are bad because they kill people and cause misery”. I agree. But even war is not necessary for mass murder and misery. In the 20th century socialist governments around the world murdered more of their own people than were killed in all of the wars of the 20th century put together. Funnily enough the ‘no borders’ campaigners come from….socialism! Frying pan… fire….!

‘White guilt’ is often invoked in order to get us to surrender our borders and this once peaceful nation to foreigners. In other words ‘Slavery’, Colonialism etc. are used as reasons ‘we owe’ everything we have to third worlders. Again this is rubbish. Between 1700 and 1850 it is estimated that African ‘Barbary’ pirates took between 1 and 1.5 million people from the coast lines of Europe. White people taken into slavery by Asians and Africans. So when do Africans/Asians apologise to us? The fact that we are more advanced and more affluent is to do with our greater ingenuity and industriousness as a race. That is not politically ‘correct’, but true. If Africans had bothered to go out and invent machines, discover electricity, perform great works of art, great scientific discoveries and explore the world etc. then they might have caught up or even not been so far behind. Slavery and colonialism has nothing to do with our advanced state, and nothing to do with their retarded nature. Blaming the white man for being the most advanced of the races is like blaming the lion for being bigger than other cats and saying it should therefore be wiped out. And then once you have wiped out the Lion, blame the leopard. Then, and only then, when you have eventually blamed and wiped out all species on earth you will have absolute equality, where nothing exists because everything is dead. The holding of the white man, and his children guilty for the being subject to the natural process of evolution. Evolution , and nature would be perversely depicted as a crime in itself. And if slavery were anything to go by they would owe us. Anyway, the Romans took slaves from most of Europe including Iron Age Britain. But I am not going to find a Pizza joint in town, walk in and grab an Italian waiter and blame him for anything! And I don’t expect billions in foreign charity aid from Italy either. Apart from the Italian crew of a campervan touring the narrow single track roads of the Northern Highlands a few years ago, I quite like the Italians I have met. Anyway, the main difference between the white slavery of black and the black slavery of white is that white people allowed their slaves to live and fought to free them. Black people just raped and butchered their white slaves. According to a recent article in the Independent Newspaper, you can still buy a slave girl in the markets of Congo, Ivory Coast and Somalia for as little as $10. So white people should feel guilty for slavery should we?….. Just run that one by me again. Funny how they don’t teach any of that in ‘Black’ history month? We wouldn’t want Whitey getting all uppity now would we?

I could go beyond that and raise the fact that even if it were not for the black slavery of whites, then  hanging a son for the sins of his father (great great great great great grandfather here) has always been abhorrent and is again the trait of a vicious tyrant. Funny how the left are adopting the traits of the vicious tyrant again. Racially inherited guilt is perhaps one of the most vile and racist concepts one can adopt. Left again. 

And it all begs the question… If ‘no borders’ and multiculture is so good, then why do they have to make us feel guilty in order to bring it upon us. If ‘no borders’ is being imposed as a result of some sort of presumed guilt, then as a matter of logic it must be a punishment. The guilty are punished. So even the ‘no borders’ lobby must (if they actually had the brains to think about it) accept that ‘no borders’ is a punishment. And as a punishment it is as a matter of logic negative on those on who it is imposed. 

I pity the self righteous inadequate white ‘do gooders’ who want to see their own children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren punished and disadvantaged as a result of a perceived wrong that none of them were guilty of. That is ethnomasocism. It goes beyond that and becomes child, grandchild and great grandchild abuse of the worst and most insidious sort. Unfortunately the trendy lefties are too busy congratulating themselves on how righteous they are to consider how vile they really are. Fortunately for them, they will not be around to see the suffering of their descendants. 

Nations, and the borders that they require, are not the enemy of world peace, but the requirement. Borders from the micro to the macro level are one of the most basic human rights and dignities that can possibly exist. Without borders the bloody and violent process of nation forming will have to start all over again. Only absolute evil would want ‘no borders’.  


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...