Posts Tagged ‘marxism’

Escaping Our Fascination With Nazism

Tuesday, December 5th, 2017

Hitler will always fascinate the West because his Reich was the last vestige of what most of us think of as the old order, where society had structure, there was a right and wrong, and a nation was defined by one ethnic group instead of being a nation-state of whoever showed up and paid taxes. His fall was the announcement that the West had given up.

At the same time, we should remember that in bad times, even good things are tainted with doubt, and so what Hitler thought was right was divergent from what was. His regime was not particularly traditional, not fully nationalist, and modern to the degree that it corrupted whatever message or principle he was hoping to establish.

Future historians may summarize the Nazis as dualistic; they both attempted to re-create an older social order, and chose to do so by using the modern method of finding a message that would motivate the masses toward a singular purpose. If Nazism had a thesis, it would be that we can use mass culture as a means of undoing mass culture, and not surprisingly, this paradoxical attempt failed.

The Left says Hitler was a Right-winger and in fact as far Right as we should dare imagine; the Right says that he was a Leftist. The Right is more correct: Hitler, while he incorporated some goals of the Right in his plan, chose to implement it through Leftist methods and a desire to create an egalitarian society, just one based on race and not citizenship.

In particular, he borrowed a great deal from the Communists:

Adolf Hitler, who admired Stalin for his ruthlessness and called him a “genius,” was also heavily influenced by Marx. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism,” Hitler said, “as I do not hesitate to admit.” Throughout his youth, Hitler “never shunned the company of Marxists” and believed that while the “petit bourgeois Social Democrat … will never make a National Socialist … the Communist always will.”

Hitler’s “differences with the communists”, argued Watson, “were less ideological than tactical”. Hitler embraced German nationalism so as not to “compete with Marxism on its own ground”, but explicitly acknowledged that “‘the whole of national socialism’ was based on Marx”. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Nazi Germany, with its concentration camps and omnipresent secret police, came so closely to resemble the Soviet Union.

How much did the Nazis learn from the Soviets?

In his 1947 memoir Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, Hoess recalled that the Germans knew of the Soviet program of extermination of the enemies of the state through forced labour as early as 1939. “If, for example, in building a canal, the inmates of a [Soviet] camp were used up, thousands of fresh kulaks or other unreliable elements were called in who, in their turn, would be used up.” The Nazis would use the same tactic on the Jewish slave laborers in, for example, munition factories.

Following their invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, wrote Watson, the Germans collected information on the immense scale of the Soviet camp system and were impressed by the “Soviet readiness to destroy whole categories of people through forced labor”.

As some have noted, the tactics of the French Revolution were applied in Nazi Germany, just more efficiently than neurotic French Leftists could imagine. Where the French marched whole families to the guillotine, the Nazis attempted to deport them, then used them as slave labor, and finally when that failed, began to liquidate them.

National Socialism, as an idea, combined the need for nationalism — rising in Europe as nation-states became unstable and fragmented — with the dominant strain of European government at the time, which was increasingly socialist, and incorporated some aspects of the capitalist-driven fascist corporate State.

It did not swing to the far Right, which has always been those who hope to conserve l’ancien régime which is a society with caste, aristocracy, elite culture, hierarchy, customs, and a code of honor motivated by virtue. No modern government can emulate that because the basic idea of modernity, mass motivation, requires an equal herd clamoring for some trend or another.

The Nazis chose to make their message one that would motivate a group and, in doing so, reduced its meaning to what fit the expectations of the crowd, instead of what was needed. Having done that, the Nazis could no longer control public expectation, and got carried away with their rhetoric, making them both arrogant and cruel.

People imagine that Hitler was a successful totalitarian, but in fact, he was ruled by his people as much as he ruled them. They rebuked him on his attempt to ban smoking, and enjoyed a more comfortable standard of living even during the war than people did in the rest of the West. The Crowd shared in the dictatorship.

Not surprisingly, the Nazis showed signs of crowd infiltration even in their political statements, as we can see with these excerpts from The 25 Points of The Programme of the NSDAP:

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

If we look at these through the wide-angle lens of history, they do not appear that much distinct from either those of the French Revolution or the Soviet Union: in the name of equality, a State is being formed to re-distribute wealth, and it requires total power to do so. The total power is not being taken from We The People, but from its natural hierarchy (aristocracy).

The West remains obsessed by Hitler mostly because the Left has used him as a convenient symbol for all things that they fear, which means all of the things that would un-do our current time, which not coincidentally are things that many of us crave because we detest the current time. But following their lead is to assign them power over us.

Perhaps the Left fixates on Hitler in order to distract us from the actual far-Right ideas out there like Traditionalism and Futurism, because if we get our hands on those, there is no way we will ever be satisfied with the managerial nanny state ever again. From a perspective that far to the Right, Hitler would appear as a slightly less Leftist version of our present time.

Nonetheless, Hitler still seduces us, mainly because he stands for the return of leadership that actually cares about civilization instead of using civilization as its own meal ticket. Democracy stands for nothing except hollow promises about free speech, free association, and use of your own property that turn out to be lies, as it goes in search of (endless) new forms of funding.

First it was taxes, then it was immigrants, and in the future, they will probably charge you directly to be part of their society, and then tax you. Sales taxes, property taxes, state taxes, licensing fees, income taxes, tariffs which the consumer ultimately pays for, mandatory inspections, and payroll deductions: they kill you with the death of a thousand cuts and it is not about money. It is about power.

Right now, we summarize WW2 by saying that Hitler was evil and the Allies were mostly good. In the near future, we will recognize that the Allies were not mostly good, mainly because they fought a war of attrition against Europe in the name of what became fully Communist Leftism. In the distant future, people will see the Allies as the bad guys, and Hitler as an unfortunate but predictable response. Years after that, they will see the Holocaust as predictable and avoidable too.

At some point, we will dig out Theodor Herzl and realize that he was one of the first — after Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and others — anti-diversity philosophers. His point was not that the French were bad, but that the Dreyfuss Affair was predictable, because when you stand out from the rest, you will get scapegoated in times of crisis.

This originates in practical reasoning. If the group is basically in agreement, and they are all doing the same roughly right thing, then if something goes wrong either “right was wrong” or there was a sabotage, and suspicion is naturally cast on those who are not doing the right thing like everyone else because they are different. It does not matter how they are different, or who they are, but just the fact of being different alone qualifies them to be a threat or scapegoat.

Jews have been booted out of 109 nations not because Jews are bad, but because being Other is bad. Diversity never works. Jewish groups also have a history of going into nations and taking things out of context, like “work hard, get ahead.” Among a native population, this is understood as part of a social process; to an outsider, it is a singular task that eclipses all others, and is more easily undertaken, because they have no need to participate in that culture and its intricate sorting rules that choose people above others.

Jews, like Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese in the current USA, throw everything normal out the window and go for the throat of education and business. This alone makes them a target, but perceived or actual nepotism — probably a mix of both — and a tendency to lean toward politics and behaviors that emphasize their Otherness also make them a perpetually resented force. This is why the Holocaust was predictable, and in more honest times in the future, we will say that, without approving of the Holocaust at all, because mass murder of families is a Leftist thing and Leftism is a form of brain disorder.

When the future looks back on the twentieth century, it will see that we created all of our own problems through theories that focused on what the audience wanted — equality, diversity, feminism, socialism — instead of what our best people knew must be done to make civilization as an organic whole thrive. As time goes on, Hitler loses his sting, but we still see him as the only force that stood up to the perpetual encroachment of herd behavior, which always focuses on what the audience wants.

The most terrifying taboo out there now is not Nazism; it is the idea that people want to restore Western Civilization, which in turn would make the Left obsolete and forgotten. It would also bypass the intermediate stage that Hitler tried to turn into a future, and avoid the fate he encountered by his own hand.

“Divide And Conquer” Meme — The Notion That Elites Divide Us By Race — Is Marxist Propaganda

Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

You may have seen a popular trope or meme floating around that suggests that our faux elites divide us by race, and that if we just join hands, we can unite ourselves to oppose those elites. Absurdly many conservatives support this.

The roots of this meme can be found in an idea from Karl Marx, describing it through the metaphor of Irish immigration and African-American dispossession:

Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labor market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

The above is simply a restatement of “workers of the world, unite” and other ideas: there are some wealthy people who are more powerful than you, so what is important is not making a functional society, but uniting against these wealthy people on the basis that they must be oppressing you, because if you are equal and ended up poor, it can only be because someone held you back.

In reality, what divides us is biology. People like to be with others who are like them, which includes race, ethnicity, caste, class, region and religion. This division serves to create a social order, which consists of unequal people doing unequal tasks for the same goal, as opposed to a uniform order of identical people all doing the same thing at once. Marxism is the ideology of the factory.

Further, our goal is not to overthrow those in power, but to ensure that power is handled by those with the natural ability to use it well, a talent comprised of both congenital intelligence and inborn moral character. Very few are competent in this arena, and they are hated by the herd, which wants to hold them back because competent leadership will mean restriction on what the crowd can do.

Humans instinctively melt for two ideas: freedom/anarchy and subsidies/socialism. Freedom, or anarchy as most people interpret it, means that they can do whatever they want, forgetting that they actually need a much narrower range of options since what they do is related to what reality rewards, and is not arbitrary. Subsidies mean that they do not have to face the consequences in reality of their illusory acts.

Our history can be understood as a constant struggle to subdue the inner human desire for stupidity, namely anarchy and socialism, with the winners being the civilizations that use principles, values, culture and hierarchy to keep the human animal from raging out of control in pursuit of its vainglorious illusions.

Socialism in particular is appealing, and might be described as “economic equality” in recognition of this fact, because it promises that we no longer have to answer to Darwin and adapt to our world, but whatever we do, will be supported by civilization. This is similar to how equality makes good and evil equal, which basically means that evil becomes more efficient and predominates.

Since humans want to pursue these illusions, they have to invent a counter-narrative to actual history that re-styles our past as a pursuit not of sanity, but of these mysterious universal, absolute and open-ended (infinite scope/context) terms that make people have an emotional reaction, like freedom, liberty, justice, peace, equality, tolerance, pluralism and socialism. They are all the same idea at their core, which is equality, or protection for the human individual against reality by using the power of the State.

Conservatives fall into this Marxist rhetoric because they want to believe that “people power” would thrust society in a conservative direction, when in reality, the more power that people have, the farther Left they go until they destroy that society, which is why human history is a jagged graph of successes followed by failures.


Thursday, June 1st, 2017

by John Murdoch

Hunting the monster has not been a easy task. As I write this I am closing in, but still it remains exclusive.

Long ago I started this hunt by looking out my window. Not because I thought I would see it directly. But maybe I could spot some clues. I started to pay attention to as many things as I could. Be alert and ready everywhere. The most subtle shift in people’s moods and behavior. Whatever triggered the sensation, like being slowly electrocuted, a malevolent invisible energy influencing people around me.

As the months passed I started to pick up more things that where a part of the downfall. I would sometimes think that it was it. There were others out there doing it too. People I could discuss it with. How is this hanging together. What is at the center of all this? It was a hopeless case of dead ends.

I sometimes wonder if it was just a sensation of the entire unity. That the monster was just a insanely complex mechanism of feedback loops running freely and feeding of each other. That it all had become so corrupt, automated and complicated it was in a sense alive and had a will and “soul” of its own. Maybe we just had gradually lost control of it and were being controlled. I considered the thought as more than just a metaphor.

In conversations with a good friend, without doubt one of the smartest people I know, I suggested ideas even more disturbing. What if it was the end time? That this she too described as a “mass psychosis” was some supernatural force attacking us? She did not want to talk about it…I understand why. But sometime during 2016, I really started to consider it seriously. Maybe what I sense is just pure evil…Why not, I certainly believe in evil.

And that led me back to paths I have already been on the days after it. Also disturbing, they all are. What if it is just a collection or sum of my personal demons after all? That the thing out there is in fact my shadow? The dream certainly had some aspect of that. At least it gave me some seriously bouts of guilt.

I found an empty notebook from my school days in the 80s. I brought it to my bedroom and started to write down words on paper. First the symptoms we have now. I drew lines and arrows between them. Traced the ideas and patterns backwards in time. Through intellectual movements, the 60s, the world wars and the ideologies that drove them. I passed 1900. And ended up with three important words that have been in there all the time. Atheism, Marxism and materialism. The last word caught my attention the most, although all three are perhaps expressions of the same thing.

What caused materialism? The idea that everything is just made up of things? A idea that no one has ever proven, but never the less taken shortcuts around proving because they believe it must be so, or want it to be… Closing in…there is s huge vortex drawn in the book. That is my Monster. Before closing the book I drew a arrow pointing at it and wrote “Demiurge?”

For the past five years, I have thrown aside such ideas in favor of a more rational approach. I want it to be impeccable and beyond criticism, like science or an electronic gadget. Finite, discrete, powerful. But these explanations elude me. Maybe it is time to bring the irrational back in…with its most terrifying possible implications.


I first detected anomalies when I began school for the first time. My earliest memories were only the warm air above the desks, the echoes of children singing, playing ball games and running between the buildings.

But after a month at school, I sensed that somewhere far in the background there was slight dissonance. Small traces of some disturbing presence. It could also be described as a feeling of foreboding, that something bad was going on somewhere out of sight. I could not notice anything with my rational eyes that seemed unusual, except the tasteless architecture perhaps. And some strange scent derived the combination of everything that went into a school. This smell was present in most of the buildings that had been built by the state, even though I did not know what a state was back then.

Inside the classroom I did the same thing more and more every day. I would daydream myself out of the room, back to my freedom or further into the unknown out there. Or places that did not exist outside my mind at all. That way I escaped the amplifying feeling of dread. Emerging out of some other place where time and space seemed irrelevant.

Autumn came abruptly. Giant grey clouds built up above it all as the trees became uncovered. During the days giant flocks of bird gathered there before they took of in perfect sync. Leaving for the winter, they seemed eager to get away as well. I used to get there in the morning before the others. I was there alone watching it in some ghostly blue and grey light. Like it was a dream of some sort. Almost like some glasslike substance filled the air. The place felt like it was sick.

I started to withdraw from the others in a cyclical manner. So I could get away from them. After all they showed no signs of noticing any of this. That made me different from them, or perhaps the other way around. Feeling I was being rejected myself, others have frequently accused me of rejecting others. And the last years I have come to realize that their version of that probably is more true than mine.

Inside the classroom things were getting unbearable. I often felt sick through my entire body. The room would get that dreamlike atmosphere and I would do the usual escape into my own mind or focus on everything in the room other than what I was supposed to. The texture of the paper in my book, the desk, the blackboard and the floor.

And then I started to see it. Not with my eyes, but some other strange sense. There was a abhorrent kind of current running through it all. Black and dangerous. Like a relentless but steady flow of billions and billions of tiny ants. Corroding and dissolving everything from inside. Trying to make their way through and pour into the world that was possible to perceive with the five senses.


She appeared out of nowhere one day. I hated her from the first second. There was something wrong with her. She had the current running through her body. She gave the impression of not belonging here at all. She was a interference. A animated body with nothing inside. No soul. Some kind of preprogrammed, robotic being posing as a human.

My friends and the others did not like her either. She was a woman in her early 50s, but it was hard to tell exactly back then since even people who were twenty seemed very old. She had an angry unpleasant face, chubby and with black messy hair reaching down to her shoulder. We were told she was a substitute for one of the usual teachers, not in my class. Except she was there as a extra for one hour once. As if she were there for another purpose entirely…

Her presence was bizarre and in some undefinable way unreasonable. One day me and two others where standing by the main entrance to the oldest part of the building. She came down the stairs from that led to the right wing of the building where the offices were. She yelled at some kids for standing in her way in her rasping metallic voice. She walked past us in her strange gait which reminded me of some troll walking. She passed by us with a white shirt hanging outside of her pants. She went up the stairs that led to the left wing of the building — separated from the right wing by a wide margin and solid walls — and disappeared as quickly as she had first appeared into the door to the oldest section of the school.

My friends would whisper about how they thought she was a witch and other scary beings from folklore and fairytales. We looked at each other. Some remarks about her ugliness. Then I looked up and she caught my eyes, walking down the stairs on the right wing of the building. My friends went quiet. We looked at each other with terrified question marks in our eyes.

We never saw her again after that. I made up some excuse of a rational explanation. She jumped through a window. Or we were mistaken. But the two sections of the school are connected in only place: right where we were standing the whole time. There was not enough time for her to have crept past us. Something else, something irrational, had occurred.

The hatred within

A year later my breathing got shallow and I started to have small dots dancing before my eyes and ants in my legs. I said I needed to go the bathroom and left the room. But instead I went down to the hall and slipped unnoticed out the main door. The black electric current faded as I got the first breaths of fresh air.

I went to the stairs I used to sit on a lot of the time. They were in front of a door on the oldest section. A door that was not in normal use anymore. But I knew it lead into a spiral stair that went all the way up to the classroom at the top. We were not allowed to walk it. We only did it once in a fire drill, not sure if it was before or after this, but I had seen it.

Instead of using my few stolen minutes siting on the stairs I stopped and looked at the hole in the wall to the left of it. I had seen it many times before and sometimes wondered why it was there. It was so big a grown man could put his hand inside it. Of course no one cared about why it was there. The place was few years away from closing because it was a health hazard. I looked around, I was alone and out of sight from all windows. I walked towards it and looked inside. A unpleasant smell of old wood and something else. It looked like the end point of some pipe system for cables. That was probably why it was open. They must have removed some older wires and did not care to close it. I did not want to stick my hand inside it. There where frequently insects crawling inside the classrooms in this section, real ones. They had to come from somewhere. I did not see any though. I took a step back and looked around.

No one was there. An idea took form in my mind. I felt the lovely rage within me, the forbidden one. A subtle smile lit up on my face. I kind of saw it in a mirror in my head. The place was in dire need of a new paint job. I could put something in there and use a few matches. The old building would be doomed and fully ablaze before anyone could stop it. This might burn out the venom and the source of the black energy that cursed me whenever I was in the building.

I could do it in the late evening. Ride my bike just before darkness, through the woods and home again. I would not dare to do that under normal circumstances, but it would be worth the trip. No one would believe I could do such a thing, my body had rushes of excitement. If that happened I would be free for a significant time.

And it occurred to me for the first time. And I wish now I had taken better care of that notion in years to come. That this had no real power over me if I wanted. Because I could do it, who would stop me? Absolutely no one…

But there were rules and codes. Most people had agreed upon them, me too, and it was not fair to cheat that way. Even though they where annoying because the people who reminded everyone else of us about these rules seemed to be those who where willing to take the most and rudest shortcuts around them. I had taken notice of that.

I went back inside. The strange current was gone, for now…


Since starting in this prison I had noticed a lot of other things besides the strange phenomenon I could feel inside it and some of its servants. Things I could put my finger on. When I did that I felt some freedom or sense of being.

Our teacher was a major problem. I had become more and more aware that I did not like the many things she told us. They seem to defy something deep within me and the world as far as I could know it back then.

She would watch us from the desk in the front of the room. The clock above her would slow down until it barely moved forward. Every time I felt she had her eyes on me I would feel a jolt of the current. I tried to escape her attention the best I could. It had become a lot harder as the years passed. Did she know? That I was feeling that something was off. Of course she did and that was probably the worst crime of them all. Although I never felt she was one of them as such, she obviously on some level thought it was very bad to observe such things.

She was watching everyone and where constantly interfering with what we did outside the classroom. Who spent time with who and what groups formed. If she did not approve of it, she would do projects to correct it and force us to do it another way. Most often with ideas that would make us all stay together in activities. Match and replace, she seemed to enjoy it a lot, or maybe just felt it was wanted and expected of her.

There were frequent conflicts. I hated the way she solved them. We were supposed to share the blame equally and say sorry. No matter whose fault it might have been. It felt very unjust to me. I got into trouble when I had to, avoided it mostly if not. When I had been the person to blame it felt wrong too. This “evening out” seemed to benefit the worst people more than anyone else. No matter what kind of cruel behavior, they would never get much more than half the blame and punishment anyways. In other words…no punishment at all. It all seemed set up for them, not the rest of us.

We would have project days where we would learn about some other country where they where worse of than lucky us. I did not mind learning about it. It was interesting enough in itself. I liked to read about it on my own. But I hated how she would almost talk down on us. We seemed to somehow be inferior to those people in Nepal, Guatemala and various places in Africa, despite the obvious evidence of the contrary.

Africa…The way she said that word. With a kind of longing sigh. Africa…she almost whispered it in a way. Her eyes would get a dreamy glance and she would give the impression of hovering above the floor as her mind went to, well, probably Africa. Or perhaps some fantasy version of it in her head. She had never been there as far as I knew.

It was about how much more connected to something else they where it seemed. Like nature. I had absolutely no interest in nature beyond the atmospheres and sensory impressions it gave me where I was. It’s laws and functions and living tightly together with it seemed odd. She brought a soap made of cow shit as proof. I did not want to touch it. And the other strange smelling objects did not impress me much more. It all stank, not just literary, but on a deeper level.

Even more I hated her praise of this UN thing. It made me suspicious. It was some kind of police that could interfere with and put itself above nations to make peace. I found war much more interesting. I played war games with people, on computers, had soldiers and tanks made of plastic, books about weaponry. And I loved airplanes above all. In particular those interior to Africa supersonic ones with weapons on them. War was one of the things that filled most of my spare time. Not just me, but most others too. I was not special in that way compared to others. And it was obviously very bad, but I did not care.

But I had very little thoughts about race anyways. We had two Asians on our school, and one student from Malaysia in my class. All adopted here. And they were not seen as negative by me or others. The guy in my class was one of us, and even one of those I hung out with outside school. I also thought a few lucky escapees from those places coming here was alright and that we should take care of those who did. We never got the impression that we would be flooded with them. No one told us anything about that. However if anyone had I’m sure I would have reacted earlier.

I never connected any of this to the monstrous force, strange mechanical people and dark currents surging through everyday objects and suffocating me, as if I were disrupted by a fear for which I had no words.

South Africa: The Fire Still Burns In Rainbow Nation

Sunday, April 16th, 2017

Apartheid ended. Nelson Mandela became President. The Springboks won the 1995 Rugby World Cup. The Golden Age had dawned and everyone in Sun City would now get a brand new pony. Oh, wait… The video below shows us how well the ANC seems to be running things.

When a nation’s leadership is unable to function, hell erupts across the countryside. Even South African President Jacob Zuma amuses himself by signing “Kill The Boer.” Genocide at least appears to have a government stamp of approval. It seems Rainbow Nation wants to become a touch more monochromatic.

Analysts of our data must consider that South Africa’s crime rates are uniquely high. Our murder rate, for example, is 500% higher than that of the United States and 3000% higher than parts of Western Europe such as the United Kingdom and Germany. This brings us to our fourth conclusion that all South Africans face an extraordinary criminal onslaught. People who have previously regarded farm attacks as a somewhat distant problem, nothing to do with them, must realise that they arguably live in as much peril as farmers do. It is clear therefore, regardless of how they rank compared to other citizens, that as a best-­- case scenario, farmers live a perilous existence in a largely lawless society.

To further the problems faced by isolated South African homesteaders, the ANC has instituted the following sets of policies to render rural South Africans less able to survive the ongoing wave of criminality.

  1. Gun control. The SA government is actively confiscating privately owned firearms.
  2. Reduced Policing. Police forces designed to protect rural residents have been reorganized and repurposed away from defending farms.
  3. Promises of Land Distribution. The SA Government has talked a lot about redistributing land and has not done so. Worse, they have blamed the farmers for the failure of the policy.

So this stuff is all theoretical evil. We don’t like theoretical evil. But if actual, real-life White Boys aren’t hurt in the making of ANC propaganda, what then is the issue? Let’s take a look at what happens when the raceturbatory rubber meets the road. Dr. Gregory Stanton studied the rural farm attack phenomenon in 2012 and reported the following under the aegis of Genocide Watch.

According to experts and estimates compiled by citizens who track the killing spree, at least 3,000 white farmers in South Africa, known as Boers (from the Dutch word for “farmer”), have been brutally massacred over the last decade. Some estimates put the figures even higher, but it is hard to know because the ANC government has purposely made it impossible to determine the true extent.

With the total number of commercial farmers in South Africa estimated at between 30,000 and 40,000, analysts say as many as 10 percent have already been exterminated. Even more have come under attack. It is worse than murder, though. Many of the victims, including children and even infants, are raped or savagely tortured or both before being executed or left for dead. Sometimes boiling water is poured down their throats. Other attacks involve burning victims with hot irons or slicing them up with machetes. In more than a few cases, the targets have been tied to their own cars and dragged along dirt roads for miles.

As I blogged earlier, Socialism can only lead to death. It always fails, it always tends towards totalitarianism and every INGSOC eventually needs a Goldstein. The more radical the socialists, the sooner it degenerates into a Winnie Mandela necklacing society.

The ANC under Jacob Zuma has every earmark of a political movement seeking to eschew any remnants of Nelson Mandela’s initially conciliatory tone towards the nation’s White minority. It is also obviously failing to provide stable governance as a unified empire instead of a warring set of tribal enclaves, even among the native Black Africans. Someone has to be blamed to continue the dance for a few more tunes. Someone must be pillaged to prevent the Marxian Visigoth Holiday from running out of beer. The peasants are weaponized. Their wrath falls upon the Boer. After the fire, the fire still burns.

Marxism Is Politicized Solipsism And Nothing More

Monday, December 12th, 2016

In Canada, Dr. Jordan Peterson is clashing with the State for his refusal to use arbitrary gender pronouns as is now apparently required by law. His reason for refusal is fascinating, and yet extremely practical, as mentioned in an interview:

Part of the reason I got embroiled in this [gender identity] controversy was because of what I know about how things went wrong in the Soviet Union. Many of the doctrines that underlie the legislation that I’ve been objecting to share structural similarities with the Marxist ideas that drove Soviet Communism. The thing I object to the most was the insistence that people use these made up words like ‘xe’ and ‘xer’ that are the construction of authoritarians. There isn’t a hope in hell that I’m going to use their language, because I know where that leads…For me this became an issue because there is not a chance I’ll use radical, authoritarian language. I’ve studied this psychologically, and I know what it does.

People say that real Marxism has never been tried – not in the Soviet Union, in China, in Cambodia, in Korea, that wasn’t real Marxism. I find that argument specious, appalling, ignorant, and maybe also malevolent all at the same time. Specious because Solzhenitsyn demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the horrors [of the Soviet system] were a logical consequence of the doctrines embedded within Marxist thinking. I think Dostoyevsky saw what was coming and Nietzsche wrote about it extensively in the 1880s, laying out the propositions that are encapsulated in Marxist doctrine, and warning that millions of people would die in the 20th century because of it.

…I think that we’re in a time of chaos and anything can happen in a time of chaos.

This is why Crowdism is an important doctrine: Marxism is not something new, but the eternal human temptation toward solipsism. It is us falling into our egos. This is a weakness inbuilt into every human, especially intelligent (which correlates with existentially fragile) ones, and when a society becomes successful, it blooms like a cancer.

It was obvious that it was coming because the Peasant Revolts in the 1500s had essentially the same ideology — everyone is equal, everything is shared, all is determined by human intent and not results because those lead to hierarchy. These may have been inspired by the Mongol Empire, perhaps the precursor to Communism, which used similar ideology as a means of appeasing its population so that they were easier to control.

People still do not understand the journey from individualism to a grey race and authoritarian state. Individuals fear the risk inherent in life, and demand guaranteed social inclusion so that even if they get it wrong, they are still part of the group. This clashes with the need for hierarchy for society to be functional, so the individualists form a little gang of Crowdists — those who advocate collectivized individualism — and act like a cult within society, promoting only their own true believers and beating down anyone else if they can. To justify their selfishness, they re-cast it as a type of Utopianism in which eliminating conflict (pacifism) becomes possible and desirable but dependent entirely on “equality,” or the concept that each person can do whatever they want and cannot suffer a loss of social rank for their failure or degeneracy. This creates a runaway ideological spiral where people attempt to demonstrate allegiance to these unrealistic ideas by forcing them on one another, which destroys social order. Society splits into many special interest groups, which leads to neglect of social institutions that then become taken over by the Crowdists, whose main goal is to externalize the costs of their actions to society at large so they can continue to have “anarchy with grocery stores.” The end result is that civilization collapses into a third-world state, which is how most societies die: popular revolt by the lower echelons, frequently called “workers” but more accurately described as unskilled and undirected people, combined with neurotic dropouts who failed at maintaining their position among the elites, becomes so focused on revenge that it destroys the basis of the civilization.

Marxism is just one version of Crowdism, but they are all very much the same: New Agey on the surface with lots of talk of accepting everyone, but underneath, unstable and therefore requiring increasingly authoritarian methods — both police enforcement and mind control through social influences — to avoid coming apart, which happens after they achieve dominance anyway because their methods are contrary to the mathematics of reality which require inequality to avoid lapsing into a condition like heat death.

Currently, we are in a time of chaos because a functional order was gradually discarded over the past thousand years and replaced by the post-war Leftist order which has recently revealed what happens when it finally gets the power it always wanted, after having cracked the system in 1968: it destroys everything. Society goes soft totalitarian, social order evaporates, people turn into cruel whores, the lowest common denominator prevails, work is slavery, cities are ugly, almost everyone is incompetent and stupid, our leaders are sadistically oblivious manipulators, and people have no hope because they see the tunnel closing in around them, and so become perverse, venal and selfish. This is every bit as end times / fall of Rome as it feels; the new-old order, which replaced the old order, is falling, and not gracefully as the old order did. It has ended civilization in collapse.

Those of us on the Alt Right, instead of dedicating our time to emoting about this like the other 99% of humanity, have instead focused on how to decrypt and debunk the arguments of the new-old order, and articulate what we want instead. The result is actual political effect instead of more narcissistic, self-focused moping as our fellow citizens seem to be dedicated to.

Eating The Rich Gives New Jersey Indigestion

Thursday, May 12th, 2016


If you live in the Eastern US, you are probably aware of a sad, sad truth, unless your aesthetic senses are dulled and you are thereby inured. Once you reach about Fredericksburg, VA and start driving north, there is a drab, beaten, burned-over homogeneity to the place. Everything along Route 1 or I-95 looks identically paved-over, burned-out, overpopulated and dirty as sewage. The place sucks clean north all the way to Boston.

And yet this region still endures in vast wealth and power. There is awesome industry, unparalleled intellect, government power and vast reservoirs of wealth. And yet, like a bright and blazing star collapsing from its own omnipotent gravity, the stench of disconsolate failure rises and hangs above the desolate plain. This physical and social sense of desolation was made visible in the economic realm when one rich dude from Jersey decided to cash it, call it a day and head to the beaches of Florida.

You see the rich dude was Hedge Fund Dominus et Deus, David Tepper. The six or so billion he personally raked in every year would get hit with The State of New Jersey’s 9% tax rate on rich little piggies. This gave them lots and lots of money to buy votes and other things. Until Mr. Tepper gave them The Big Trump and yanked the plug on the so-called Garden State.

Mr. Tepper, 58, declined to comment on his move. He does have family — his mother and sister — who live in Florida. But several New Jersey lawmakers cited his relocation as proof that the state’s tax rates, up from 6.37 percent in 1996, are chasing away the rich. Florida has no personal income tax. “If you’re making hundreds of millions of dollars and you’re paying close to 10 percent to the state of New Jersey, you do the math,” said Jon Bramnick, the Republican leader in the New Jersey Assembly. “You can save millions a year by moving to Florida. How can you blame him?”

So Tepper scrapes the leeches off his wallet with a putty-knife. An E-Vil Rethuglican points out some of the obvious. Or as the New York Times belatedly figures out when it commits some journalism, supporting an entire region of the country off of billionaire faux-nobility in a small handful of zip codes doesn’t promote fiscal stability.

In New York, California, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey, the top 1 percent pay a third or more of total income taxes. Now a handful of billionaires or even a single individual like Mr. Tepper can have a noticeable impact on state revenues and budgets.

But wouldn’t all this be fixed if we practiced socialism and just made David Tepper bankroll New Jersey? If we were larping with (((THE BERN))), this would work in theory. But in practice we need to ask ourselves one stupid, little question. Who bankrolls the socialists? Oh yeah…According to Thomas Frank, that would be David Frikking Tepper. It’s all a nice, happy circle. Like an ouroborus!

According to Frank, popular explanations which blame corporate lobby groups and the growing power of money in politics are insufficient. Frank instead points to a decision by Democratic Party elites in the 1970s to marginalize labor unions and transform from the party of the working class to the party of the professional class. In so doing, the Democratic Party radically changed the way it understood social problems and how to solve them, trading in the principle of solidarity for the principle of competitive individualism and meritocracy. The end result is that the party which created the New Deal and helped create the middle class has now become “the party of mass inequality.” In These Times spoke with Frank recently about the book via telephone.

But this is way too self-serving for the Lefties. They didn’t get to be “the party of mass equality” because of any reversible philosophical apostasy. They got this way because they took one look at the dysgenic rabble they had spawned during The Summer of Love and inferred the obvious. No way.

Marxism cannot work. It never worked. At the crux of the latest liberal angst and self-flagellation worthy of Fifty Shades of Bullsh!t, is this realization. They are in the same position Vladimir Lenin found himself back in 1924. To make Liberalism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism or any other bastard offspring of the Marx, Proudhon and Engels gang-bang work, they need a magic recipe that turns chicken sh!t into chicken salad. It doesn’t exist. Liberalism cannot work. Ever. It has to be abandoned for some form fascism or oligarchical collectivism.

At that point, guys like David Tepper have all the cards and hold the keys to all the exits. (((THE PEOPLE))) can want whatever the hell they want. They aren’t going to get it. They aren’t going to get any of it without hard-headed and hard-assed individuals like Tepper who know how to get it. This isn’t the Magic Kingdom of Equestria and David Tepper isn’t going to give you a frikking pony. He will charge you for one. It will cost you an arm and a leg.

If he no longer likes the deal he will walk and you will die. So back up north in Jersey they cry the beloved tax revenue. This isn’t the end. This is just the end of demotism and all its loathsome, solipsistic self-regard. I’m having a hard time feeling any sadness. People that play stupid games win stupid prizes. Meanwhile, the northeastern hunk of Amerika will gradually look even more like it was ridden like Harley and then put away wet.

One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway, by Åsne Seierstad

Saturday, September 12th, 2015


Anders Breivik continues to attract interest because he did what no conservative irked by multiculturalism will do: he blamed his own people, specifically liberals, and raised the cost of being a liberal to include the risk of death. Liberals now can preach full Communism wherever they want with zero repercussions; Breivik forever changed that in Norway, where parents now think twice about letting their children get involved with the Young Marxists. Typical of liberals, they are oblivious to the consequences of their actions until personal risk appears.

Åsne Seierstad, a somewhat typically neurotic journalist, does a fair job of chronicling the preparation and execution of the terror attacks at Utøya Island on July 22, 2011. Breivik executed 69 teenagers who were attending a far-left propaganda camp and killed eight more people in downtown Oslo with a Timothy McVeigh style ANFO car bomb. He explained his motivation as opposition to multiculturalism and leftism, which he sees as destroying Norway and Europe, and was sentenced to twenty-one years in a sentence that self-renews if he is still viewed as a threat to society, the equivalent of a life sentence anywhere else. He also raised eyebrows by giving the Roman salute during his trial. Seierstad chronicles all of these events faithfully and only goes awry when she tries to, in typical liberal fashion, provide a psychology that explains away Breivik’s concerns and acts.

He was rejected by those who mattered.
He did not fit in. He was patient and persistent, but he never it to the top of World of Warcraft. He was never among the Top 500 on the servers that matters, and thus was never ranked.
He acted like a king, when he was only a toy. (130)

One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway runs over 500 pages; to waste space on conjecture of that nature is not only irresponsible, but self-impressed to the point of narcissism. If any psychology is being revealed here, it is Seierstad, and her unprofessionalism in this regard — while the norm — lessens the power of this book. However, it also has numerous strengths. For one thing, Seierstad does an excellent job of speaking through her characters because she uses original research and, when possible, their words. She gives plenty of page time to Breivik and his statements to police as well as excerpts from his 1500 page manifesto and bibliography (in which was cited). The latter half of the book seems almost sympathetic to Breivik, and in the former half, she acknowledges without blame the problems afflicting Norway, including first-world neurosis and boredom, immigration and failed multiculturalism, and the general ineptitude of government officials. Her description of the police response to the massacre could read like a Three Stooges episode, in parallel to the earlier incompetence of social workers trying to help Breivik’s mother, Wenche. Everywhere the utter instability of the Nordic Marxist-influenced society leaks out and provides a resonant backdrop to the motivation and ideological alignment of her central character.

The interrogation continued in the car on the way to Oslo. The officers asked Breivik to tell them honestly whether any more attacks were planned. He answered that: ‘If I give you that, I’ll have nothing.’

‘It’s important to curb people’s fears now,’ objected the police. Breivik retorted that it was up to the powers of law and order to make people feel safe.

‘It’s beyond our power to reassure the Norwegian people now, so you have achieved that effect.’

Breivik grinned.

‘That’s what they call terror, isn’t it? (375)

This book takes a long time to get to the massacre, thankfully rushes through the massacre because shooting unarmed people is not all that interesting, and makes the trial less than boring which is a feat since almost all trials are mostly tedium. Seierstad picks crucial passages from Breivik’s statements to use in his dialogue with police, the press and the courts, and will give a casual reader a good idea of where he was going. Unlike a Hollywood production, she does not dumb down the ideation behind the attack; like Hollywood, she inserts too much focus on people and emotions that while important to readers, are fundamentally disconnected from what should be the focus, which is the issues and the change in history. She writes moderately, using very similar language with trope-cliché flair in the form of dramatic chapter endings, linguistic flourishes, excessive metaphors and the like. These are all standard to NPR, Salon, The Atlantic and other mainstream media standards for what is “good writing,” but this is not good writing. It is adequate, and with that none should have a problem, but it frequently becomes pretentious and adorns itself with decorations when it should focus on being functional and finding a way to make that interesting, as Seierstad did with the trial. A good editor could cut several hundred pages from this book and lose nothing of import.

When an event of political violence occurs, people rush to label it a tragedy and to paper over it with moral platitudes so that no one looks into the motivations of those involved. If Seierstad has a triumph, it is that she reveals the origins of Breivik and what shaped him; if she has a shame, it is the 200+ additional pages of focus on the victims, attempts to psychoanalyze Breivik, and other not really relevant material. She may have included that merely to disguise her quasi-affection for her subject, or because people are cud-chewing bovines who need a certain amount of “human interest.” Those parts are worth skimming over in this book because they contribute nothing; there is not enough about these victims to make them really impressive, which may explain why they were leftists. The real story here is the breakdown of Norwegian society and how it produces highly alienated people, and how one of these decided to act, and changed politics in Norway as a result.

How your future was ruined

Saturday, March 21st, 2015


In nature, one of the most numerous classes of organisms is that of parasites.

These creatures, instead of producing their own sustenance, draw it from others. They range from viruses to monkeys who steal food from others.

Parasitism can be observed with manipulative behavior as well. In city parks across earth, grackles have learned a simple trick: pretend to have an injured wing or missing leg, and humans will take pity on them and toss over more food.

In the realm of symbols, language and emotions such as are the glue of civilizations, parasitism takes the form of appealing to pity. Pity involves making a public display of ineptitude such that others feel compelled to help, lest the people around them think those others heartless. People like seeing displays of emotion because those make them feel “safe,” thinking that the other person is somehow incapable of acts of self-serving viciousness.

People forget that a parasite is merely a passive form of the predator. Where the predator takes, the parasite begs. This rewards the parasite with less food, but does so at much reduced risk. A predator must hunt and may come home with nothing; a parasite almost always has something. It is the safer, more responsible, and more business-savvy response to the question of predation. No Fortune 500 company would ever endorse hunting — what do you say to the stockholders when you have a bad quarter? — but like farming, represents an evening-out of risk. The reduced risk leads to greater profits through eliminating margins of cost and uncertainty.

Your future was ruined when civilization decided to become a parasite on itself. Or rather: on those who are productive. The non-producers want guaranteed inclusion in society so that they can create a parasitic role for themselves. As the number of parasites increases, the society tips over and eventually order collapses, leaving behind third world levels of chaos.

To force inclusion, parasites invent two destructive forces: politics and make-work. The former requires that every idea be debated not in terms of its effects, which very few can understand, but in terms of its appearance, such as feelings, judgments and desires, which is where human self-discipline is at its lowest and in groups nearly non-existent. It favors anything that introduces strong feelings because those polarize enough of the voters to have a plurality and thus compel others to go along with the plan. Make-work is designed to include those who are actually useless in jobs so that they are not simply cut out of society, and consists of creating tasks which do not need doing. What society ever perished from a lack of lawyers, bureaucrats, or entertainers? Whole industries are invented to “serve” citizens products they do not need, and at each level government, industry and unions conspire to layer the process with administrators, managers, bureaucrats and compliance officers. Each takes a little sip of the chalice of wealth before passing it on to those who actually generate it.

Karl Marx served as the best perpetrator of this fraud. He drew a distinction between workers and owners, which neatly split the class of producers into each group and in each group lumped them in with the parasites. This created a more socially acceptable way of being outraged at the ongoing leeching of wealth from society to parasites, but by creating the artificial category “workers” (versus producers) it ended up providing cover for and defending the parasites as objects of pity. Through this method, your future was ruined and stolen from you, leaving only a path of endless labor to support the growing consort of parasites.

Nelson Mandela, Communist

Friday, December 6th, 2013


The six giant corporations that produce most of your media seem to be in agreement that Nelson Mandela is a pacifist hero of freedom and equality. You are taught that there is no higher goal than freedom, equality and pacifism in school and through books, movies, music and art.

This cultural consensus presents itself as universal, meaning shared by all people. If that is so, however, why does the media have to constantly pump this message toward you to the point of excluding others? This includes historical facts that are inconvenient.

Nelson Mandela was a Communist guerrilla. This fact should not require explaining away. It should also not be hidden. One way to hide it is to selectively fail to mention it while enthusiastically repeating other ideas. This act of omission combined with what is basically an advertising campaign amounts to concealment and in practical terms, the same thing as lying.

If you find your media is lying to you, it then makes sense to ask why. The answer appears to be that media is a product and inherently untrustworthy, and it is selling to an audience that it perceives is liberal. It may do this because most of the people who work in media, as people who like to draw attention to themselves, are solipsists.

In other words, the megaphone that you trust for truth may most commonly broadcast the products of a mental health problem (solipsism) and mislead you. This means the news is manipulated not for a better world, but for the personal pretense and conceits necessary to justify the insanity of individuals.

But we can clear this up. Was Nelson Mandela a Communist? Let’s look at Mr. Nelson Mandela’s record here:

The former South African president, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, has always denied being a member of the South African branch of the movement, which mounted an armed campaign of guerrilla resistance along with the ANC.

But research by a British historian, Professor Stephen Ellis, has unearthed fresh evidence that during his early years as an activist, Mr Mandela did hold senior rank in the South African Communist Party, or SACP. He says Mr Mandela joined the SACP to enlist the help of the Communist superpowers for the ANC’s campaign of armed resistance to white rule.

His book also provides fresh detail on how the ANC’s military wing had bomb-making lessons from the IRA, and intelligence training from the East German Stasi, which it used to carry out brutal interrogations of suspected “spies” at secret prison camps. – “Nelson Mandela ‘proven’ to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial,” by Colin Freeman and Jane Flanagan, The Guardian, December 8, 2012.

The following reveals the origins of the people who became the ANC through “pressure from above.” Political groups tend to form where they can find support, funding and weapons:

From its formation in 1921 as the first Marxist-Leninist party on the continent, the Communist Party struggled with the need to reconcile race and class, nationalism and socialism in its doctrine. Formed by whites but for over 30 years the only nonracial political party in South Africa, it initially appealed to the white working class. Skilled artisans and intellectuals had brought socialist thinking from Britain around the turn of the century. In 1909 a Labour Party was formed but split over the World War. Those who opposed participation and were enthusiastic about the Russian Revolution joined with several small Marxist groups to form the Communist Party of South Africa.

The party’s notorious but anti-capitalist slogan during the white mineworkers’ uprising of 1922 was “Workers of the World, Fight and Unite for a White South Africa,” (emphasis added). The strike was brutally crushed. Recognizing the hostility of white workers to it, the party turned to the African working class, conducting night schools and organizing trade unions. In 1928 almost all of its 1,750 members were Africans. Only about 150 were whites, but they continued to predominate.

Within a few years the party was shattered, hit by government repression but even more by the consequences of obedience to the Moscow-based Comintern. Despite remonstrances about the need for appealing also to the white working class, the Comintern in 1928 ordered as correct the slogan: “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.” The factionalism and expulsions that followed this declaration virtually decimated the party. With the rise of Hitler and Moscow’s new emphasis on organizing all-class united fronts, the party slowly revived. – “South African Liberation: The Communist Factor,” by Thomas G. Karis, Foreign Affairs, Winter 1986/87.

The ANC represented an attempt by Communist forces in South Africa to switch from a whites-oriented Communist revolution to a multicultural Communist revolution, although as time went on they had the wisdom to hides its Communist roots so that egalitarian Western “useful idiots” would support it.

Even Mandela’s defenders admit his flirtation with Communism was more than at the surface:

We know that between June and December 1961, Mandela remained in hiding in a series of safe houses arranged by SACP members, passing much of the time reading a series of classic authorities on insurgent warfare. This seems the most likely time for him to have joined the party. He already had a rough grasp of the essentials of Marxist ideas, acquired again through reading and discussions with Moses Kotane at the beginning of the 1950s. As he noted much later in his 1994 autobiography, during the 1950s, the certainties offered by “the scientific underpinnings of dialectical materialism” were for him powerfully compulsive. – “Mandela’s communism: why the details matter,” by Tom Lodge, Open Democracy, September 9, 2011.

And despite generally leaning toward leftism, Wikipedia acknowledges what it considers harmless facts:

Umkhonto we Sizwe (abbreviated as MK, translated as “Spear of the Nation”) was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), co-founded by Nelson Mandela, which fought against the South African government.[1] MK launched its first guerrilla attacks against government installations on 16 December 1961. It was subsequently classified as a terrorist organisation by the South African government and the United States, and banned.[2]

For a time it was headquartered in Rivonia, a suburb of Johannesburg. On 11 July 1963, 19 ANC and MK leaders, including Arthur Goldreich and Walter Sisulu, were arrested at Liliesleaf Farm, Rivonia (26°2′36″S 28°3′15″E). The farm was privately owned by Arthur Goldreich and bought with South African Communist Party and ANC funds. – “Umkhonto we Sizwe,” Wikipedia, Anonymous, retrieved December 6, 2013.

Left-leaning CNN affirms the same facts and points out Mandela’s lengthy history with the Communists:

Mandela’s close association with Marxists goes back at least to the 1940s, when he was enrolled in law school.

He began a life-long friendship with Joe Slovo, “an ardent communist,” the anti-apartheid icon wrote in his autobiography “Long Walk to Freedom.”

Mandela described Slovo as of the people, “without whom I would have accomplished very little.”

A watershed moment tightly bonded Mandela to Slovo and other communist allies.

Police gunned down 69 unarmed protesters in the town of Sharpville in March 1960. Then the government banned the communist party and the African National Congress, which fought for the freedom of black South Africans.

With Slovo and other Marxists, he co-founded the militia movement Umkhonto we Sizwe. It’s meaning: “Spear of the Nation.”

On December 16, 1961, the group carried out its first attacks on government installations and handed out leaflets announcing its existence. – “Nelson Mandela death: Examining the backlash,” by Ben Brumfield, CNN, December 6, 2013.

It is ridiculous to claim Nelson Mandela as either a pacifist or a non-Communist when he was caught, along with his fellow ANC members, in possession of a large number of Soviet Bloc arms and ammunition that was too large to have been purchased on the open market, and thus most likely came from the Soviet government.

A good summary of the history of the period:

In South Africa, it was the Soviet bloc—the same communist governments that were brutally repressing their own people—that helped the ANC fight apartheid. In the 1980s, they were joined by an American and European anti-apartheid movement willing to overlook the ANC’s communist ties because they refused to see South Africa’s freedom struggle through a Cold War lens. At a time when men like Reagan and Cheney were insisting that the most important thing about Mandela was where he stood in the standoff between Washington and Moscow, millions of citizens across the West insisted that the ANC could be Soviet-backed, communist-influenced, and still lead a movement for freedom. – “Don’t Sanitize Nelson Mandela: He’s Honored Now, But Was Hated Then,” by Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast, December 5, 2013.

Even more, Western liberals began covering up this fact early on:

We know this from any number of sources, but let’s hear it from Hilda Bernstein, who lived long enough to acquire a shrewd understanding of herself and the Communist movement of which she was a lifelong part. “Joe and Rusty were hardline Stalinists,” she said in 2004, speaking of her late husband Rusty, a Central Committee member, and Joe Slovo, the most influential Communist of his era. “Anything the Soviets did was right,” said Mrs. Bernstein. “They were very, very pro-Soviet.”

This much could be easily gleaned by reading the SACP journal, African Communist, or just sniffing the air outside the London headquarters of the African National Congress; during the struggle years (1960–1990) the SACP reeked of Soviet orthodoxy, and the ANC reeked of the SACP. As a journalist, you had to be very careful what you said about this. The civilized line was the one ceaselessly propounded in The New York Times—Nelson Mandela was basically a black liberal, and his movement was striving for universal democratic values. Anyone who disagreed was an anti-Communist crank, as Keller labels me. – “Mandela & Communism: An Exchange,” by Bill Keller, New York Review of Books, March 21, 2013.

But don’t take our word for it. Read his. Nelson Mandela’s, that is. Here’s an excerpt from his book, How to Be a Good Communist:

The goal of Communism is a classless society based on the principle: from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. The aim is to change the present world into a Communist world where there will be no exploiters and no exploited, no oppressor and oppressed, no rich and no poor. Communists fight for a world where there will be no unemployment, no poverty and starvation, disease and ignorance. In such a world there will be no capitalists, no imperialists, no fascists. There will be neither colonies nor wars.

In our own country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its policies. The aim of the S.A.C.P. is to defeat the Nationalist government and to free the people of South Africa from the evils of racial discrimination and exploitation and to build a classless or socialist society in which the land, the mines, the mills, our . . . . . . . (unreadable)

Under a Communist Party Government South Africa will become a land of milk and honey. Political, economic and social rights will cease to be enjoyed by Whites only. They will be shared equally by Whites and Non-Whites. There will be enough land and houses for all. There will be no unemployment, starvation and disease.

Workers will earn decent wages; transport will be cheap and education free. There will be no pass laws, no influx control, no Police raids for passes and poll tax, and Africans, Europeans, Coloureds and Indians will live in racial peace and perfect equality.

The victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., in the Peoples Republic of China, in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Rumania, where the living conditions of the people were in many respects similar and even worse than ours, proves that we too can achieve this important goal. – “How to Be a Good Communist,” by Nelson Mandela.

Further reading Mandela’s words, here’s his admission to being part of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the terrorist organization that attacked civilian areas like shopping centers and banks:

I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.

I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962. – “Read the most important speech Nelson Mandela ever gave,” by Max Fisher, Washington Post, December 5, 2013.


Here’s the paragon of racial tolerance singing “Kill the Boer,” a reference to the Dutch-descended ethnic group in South Africa:

The End of History

Friday, December 30th, 2011

The German philosopher Hannah Arendt writes in Tradition and the Modern Age that an unsettling paradox emerges in the modern world’s view of history. If history is a struggle towards a perfect political system, then when that system is achieved history will be complete — and then what will the purpose of mankind be?

The opening sentence of the Communist Manifesto is that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Note that this revolutionary statement is not about society itself, but about its history, and the rewriting of world history becomes the Communist objective. If Marx could persuade mankind to accept that historical narrative, then the establishment of Communism itself would go without saying, for it would be a historical inevitability.

By revaluing labor and violence as problems to be eliminated rather than part of the structure of civilization, Marx sets mankind on the path to rewrite history as a road to perfection. Distaste for gods and heroes of the past and desire to destroy their memory, dishonor towards one’s parents and teachers, and disdain for one’s culture are all encouraged by this philosophy, which teaches that we are moving from darkness into light. We must be “progressive”, accepting the natural progress of society towards this conclusion, or hastening it along.

Neglecting the terrible practical flaws of Communism for a second, Marx might as well have written that the history of society is a struggle between medicine and disease. Obviously we must always fight disease or we shall all perish. But when medicine wins the “war,” and all mankind becomes healthy and immortal, what happens next? People will be perfectly free of struggle, and thus have no goals worth pursuing whatsoever.

To imagine history as a teleological process is to imagine its completion. But this is fallacy, for man acts on the present based on his experience of the past. With the past eliminated there is no future. The end of history is the end of meaning, and imagining that history carries on without you towards its goal means that you imagine your own life to lack meaning.

It is often said that life is already meaningless by those philosophers who insist on pursuing this teleology. However, as long as we have a memory of the past, of our parents and those who came before us, and as long as words have authority to us and we have not been made enemies of our own language by ideologues who denounce it, life will have meaning as well.

And when we ask ourselves how we derive this meaning from our circumstances, we can see in the mystery of our membership in these lineages a spark of greatness, shining through from the past into the future.

Recommended Reading