The creeping, insidious disease of communism

“Mad Mike” Hoare, in his trademark black beret, training mercenaries in Katanga province in 1964. The Richard Burton character in the movie “The Wild Geese” was modeled on Mr. Hoare.

Credit...

"The rebels were on a hill about 200 yards away, firing wildly with machine guns and a bazooka.

At the first shots, our ANC backup bolted into the bush, leaving me with just 42 of my mercs to face 400 Simbas. They were in the open with no cover..they had no fear of death. We just walked slowly up the hill, firing as we went. It was like a shooting gallery. I personally shot 13 rebels before I stopped counting.

When we had killed some 150 rebels, the rest vanished into the jungle. Only one of my men was slightly wounded.

When we first went into action, we were trying to work as soldiers, but in the end we just had machine guns mounted on Jeeps, decorated with captured spears, shields, the heads of dead rebels, and we’d scream along the road. If anyone approached us, we’d just open fire.

We were destined to strike a blow to rid the Congo of the greatest cancer the world has ever known—the creeping, insidious disease of communism.” - Mad Mike Hoare - 5 Commando ANC, Congo 1965

“Mad” Mike Hoare (center) somewhere in the Congo.

The Outstanding Achievements of Fascism

 

Monolithic obelisk at the Foro Mussolini. The Codex Fori Mussolini was hidden at its base, and only recently recovered.

"It stands at the very entrance of the Foro Mussolini and it will immortalize for eternity the fortunes of the fatherland, restored by the Leader, the excellent and unconquered spirit of the Leader regarding the fatherland, the immovable loyalty of the citizens to the Leader, and the outstanding achievements of Fascism."

- Codex Fori Mussolini, last lines, 27 Oct. 1932, inscribed in Latin by Aurelio Giuseppe Amatucci

Christians are useless in any effort to preserve our Race

"I emphatically call your attention to the obvious fact that the primitive Christian doctrine is a specific demand for the suicide of our race, which survived from the end of the Roman Empire to the present only because our ancestors, of fresh barbarian stock, simply ignored in practice a large part of the pernicious doctrine, especially in northern Europe under essentially aristocratic régimes. Until the disintegration of Protestantism made it possible for any ambitious tailor, clever confidence man, or disgruntled housewife to have “revelations” and pitch the woo at lower classes to make themselves important or fleece the suckers, the professional holy men either contented themselves with telling our people they were “sinful” or used the common devices of theologians to conceal the import of the holy book. (Even so, however, the Catholic dervishes are obviously responsible for the eventual dominance of mestizos in “Latin” America, and many similar misfortunes).

For the deplorable acceptance of Christianity by the ignorant barbarians of our race, I have tried to account in my book, Christianity and the Survival of the West. I would now change nothing in that discussion except to make it more emphatic, for in the years since I wrote it, I have come to the conclusion that, with only numerically insignificant exceptions, the Christians are useless in any effort to preserve our race, and that our domestic enemies are, from their standpoint, well advised to subsidize, as they are now doing, the ranting of evangelical shamans and the revival of menticidal superstitions by every means, including the hiring of technicians who can pose as “scientists” and “prove,” by subtle or impudent tricks, the “truth” of the flimsiest hoaxes and the most preposterous notions. The development of Christianity in all the sects of the Western world during the past two centuries has been the progressive elimination from all of them of the elements of our natively Aryan morality that were superimposed on the doctrine before and during the Middle Ages to make it acceptable to our race and so a religion that could not be exported as a whole to other races. With the progressive weakening of our racial instincts, all the cults have been restored to conformity with the “primitive” Christianity of the holy book, i.e., to the undiluted poison of the Jewish originals. I should, perhaps, have made it more explicit in my little book that the effective power of the alien cult is by no means confined to sects that affirm a belief in supernatural beings. As I have stressed in other writings, when the Christian myths became unbelievable, they left in the minds of even intelligent and educated men a residue, the detritus of the rejected mythology, in the form of superstitions about “all mankind,” “human rights,” and similar figments of the imagination that had gained currency only on the assumption that they had been decreed by an omnipotent deity, so that in practical terms we must regard as basically Christian and religious such irrational cults as Communism and the tangle of fancies that is called “Liberalism” and is the most widely accepted faith among our people today. I am a little encouraged that today some of the more intelligent “Liberals” are at last perceiving that their supposedly rational creed is simply based on the Christian myths they have consciously rejected. I note, for example, that Mary Kenny, who describes herself as “a former radical” (The Sunday Telegraph, 27 January 1980, pp. 8-9), has come to the realization that:

‘so many of the [“Liberals’”] political ideas... are religious at root. The search for equality in the secular sense is a replacement of the Judaeo-Christian idea that God loves every individual equally... The feelings of guilt or, indeed, pity, which once went into the religious drive, are being transferred to secular ideas to the ultimate destruction of our civilisation.’

So far as there is hope for us, it lies, I think, in this belated tendency take account of biological realities."

Revilo P. Oliver - Chapter 12 of Oliver’s The Jewish Strategy, Palladian Books, 2002

Terrorist, communist, murderer

“Today I don’t mourn Mandela’s passing. Instead , today I think of the people he murdered. I think of them lying in their graves while for years he drank champagne and was fettered on the international stage as some kind of living god. I think of all the people who have died since he became president of South Africa. All the farmers , all the elderly , all the men , women and especially all the children , who died as a result of him being unleashed onto South Africa.

And while the brainwashed celebrate his life and his so-called achievements , I remember that he pleaded guilty to 156 counts of public violence , including mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns , which planted bombs in public places. Many innocent people including women and children died because of Mandela and his MK terrorists. For that he wasn’t hung by the neck until dead – instead he was given a life sentence in jail , the biggest mistake ever made by the South African judiciary. For it gave the ANC time to white-wash his history and remake Mandela into a freedom fighter. And with the help of Communists around the Western world , the reincarnation of Mandela the freedom fighter and Black activist was achieved.

I’ll remember too that he released thousands of criminals , murderers and rapists from jail every year to celebrate his birthday while president , unleashing even more violence , chaos and death on the people of South Africa. I’ll remember Mandela supporting some of the worst dictatorships and human rights abusers in the world: Fidel Castro , Ghaddafi in Libya , China , Suddam Hussein in Iraq , Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe….the list goes on. No one too evil to visit or welcome in South Africa by Mandela , yet he was celebrated as a human rights champion by the world.

I’ll remember that over 100 000 people were murdered under Mandela’s presidency – an average of 25 000 people each year. Up from 170 each year under Apartheid (1948-1989). I’ll remember that in the first four years of his presidency , the South African currency lost 80% of its value and a thousand working days were lost due to strikes. I’ll remember that the national debt doubled under Mandela.

Yes , I will remember the failure that the man Nelson Mandela was. Not the magical myth we’re supposed to believe in. The world may have repackaged and re-branded him , but underneath he’s still the same murdering terrorist and Communist he always was.”

If you don't like this or are "OFFENDED" by it, good! I hope a dose of reality wakes up your brain! Unlike us if you want. I couldn't give a shyte."

Stop Farm Attacks & Murders in South Africa

The “last hour” of doomed Europa

Wilhelm Marr

"After it has invaded Russia’s offices and agencies the same way it did ours, then the collapse of our Western society will begin in earnest openly and in Jewish fashion. The “last hour” of doomed Europa will strike at the latest in 100 to 150 years, since events develop more rapidly now, than they did in past centuries.[1979-2029]"

—Wilhelm Marr, The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View, 1879

'The Jewish spirit undermines the healthy strength of the German people'

Paula Hitler speaks out in Defence of her Brother

The following is a statement made by Paula Hitler in 1957, repeating her conviction expressed 12 years earlier following the death of her beloved brother. In it she addresses a new generation of German politicians and critics of the Führer, as she compares his greatness with their contemptible insignificance and unworthiness.

Gentlemen! Remember this: Your names will long be forgotten even before your bodies have rotted away in the Earth. But the name Adolf Hitler will still be a light in the darkness. You cannot murder him by drowning his memory in your vomit-buckets, and you cannot strangle him with your filthy, ink-stained fingers. His name exists forever in hundreds of thousands of souls. You are entirely too insignificant to even touch him.

He loved Germany; he lived for Germany. When he fought for honor and respect, he fought for German honor, for respect for Germany; and when there was nothing left, he gave his life for Germany.

What have you given thus far? Which one of you would give his life for Germany? The only things you care about are riches, power and never-ending luxurious living. When you think of Germany, you think of indulging your senses without responsibility, without cares.

Trust me on this: The Führer's utter selflessness in word and deed alone guarantees his immortality. The fact that the bitter fight for Germany's greatness was not crowned with success like, for example, Cromwell's in Britain, has a lot to do with the mentality of the people involved. On the one hand, the Englishman¹s character is essentially unfair, ruled by jealousy, self-importance and a lack of consideration. But he never forgets that he is an Englishman, loyal to his people and to his crown. On the other hand, the German, with his need for recognition, is never first and foremost a German.

Therefore it doesn't matter to you, you insignificant creatures, if you destroy the entire nation. The only thought that guides you will always be: Me first__ Me second__ Me third. In your worthlessness you will never think of the welfare of the nation. And with such a pitiful philosophy you wish to prevent the immortality of a giant?

What I wrote down immediately after the war has proven to be correct. That my convictions are true is evident, even as late as 1957.

/Signed/

PAULA HITLER

Berchtesgaden, 1st May 1957

The Warrior And The Priest: Initiation

Britons - A Warrior, A Priest

Metaphysics and Initiation

by Frank L. DeSilva

Most people, given a sedentary lifestyle, peace, accumulation of wealth, and the various studies of higher learning, will become, with time, used to such comfort, in extremis, thereby becoming sheep, corralled easily, and sheared when needed; a circumstance not very independent, or likely to achieve any lasting character which would make them stand out for emulation. We would generally call this ‘group’ cowardly indeed. In this context, as with all governments, democracy seeks that political control over its social order with which it need to lead. When this happens, the mass is afforded that much sought after panacea of democracy: each man is the same as his fellows, with no distinction made between the two; no distinction based upon ‘breed’, or ‘intellectual achievement’, or any other consideration.Y  The ‘aristocracy’ of the Modern reigns supreme.

The history of ‘aristocracy’, proper, is quite different. We in the West, specifically of this northern continent, do not like any form of aristocracy – after all, was not our very birth delivered ‘caesarian’ from this very Mother? It nevertheless holds true, that for thousands of years, specifically, it has been this type of ruling body, either through some form of heredity or selection [i.e. election], which has lasted for the longest periods. Think of Venice, for instance – a thousand years – and of Egypt – three thousand!

If this form of ‘technics’ has lasted long therefore, is it not thereby entirely justified if one infers from the evidence that this form of technic has maintained the confidence and loyalty of the race-culture? Conversely, history has shown that Aristocracies have failed, and given place, finally, to democracies. However, what exactly does this say? What ‘rule of thumb’ can be measured in this constant? Does this not mean, like anything else, [including democracy], that this or that system was worn out; that its technics were fixed, thereby resting in a state of ‘static control’? That this or that system was decadent? Is this incidental, or simply the ‘way-sign- of senility? It most certainly does not prove, one way or the other, that any one system is better or worse than the other: only its effects are judged good or bad. It does not prove in any way that an ‘aristocracy’ vs. ‘democracy’ is better than its opposite. The ruling body of any race-culture is elite, no matter what system employed to keep those who rule in power. It is, and will remain, no matter what system is employed, the intelligent, vigorous, and most gifted of the ‘organic strata’ [i.e. those of its blood] of persons who make up a Folk, that will form the core of any system of its race-culture. The race-culture naturally leans in this direction when it is healthy – no matter what the race-culture. It relies upon itself, and to those that are an organic part of itself. It is this strata that has ‘de jure ‘ right to lead, but is not always that strata that does lead. Let us expand on this subject risking, perhaps, the valued attention to this premise so far:

Dualistically, nature has always considered systems and forms to be ‘one’ or the ‘other’. There is ‘white/black’, there is ‘sun/moon’, there is ‘sky/earth’; there is ‘male/female’ and ‘sunrise/sunset’ terms which, until recently, held distinctions, which the Modern, seemingly, is unable to grasp. He thinks in terms of grey, of the multiplicity of ‘possibilities’, the ‘minutiae’ of reasoning become absurd. Aristocracy, as a ‘form’, admits a ‘duality’, insofar as one can see a ‘top and bottom’, leaders and followers.

If it be honestly admitted, elites of one type or another, like cream, rise to the top; in the ancient past of our Western culture, this point is self-evident. But here one must put aside the ‘better known’ aspect of what is the common usage of ‘elite’, or ‘aristocratic’, especially if one limits himself to a ‘standard’ definition, and delve a little deeper.

In the ancient West, it was not material wealth, its martial skill, or even its priestly castes, which made, or rather, created a sense of elitism. Our pursuit here is at once deeper, and metaphysical. At once psychic, those of our ancient past, regardless of the level or caste in which one was born, was the sacred ability to ‘initiate’, to be initiated, to ‘ritually initiate’ that person or persons into a particular caste. It was the ‘rite of passage’ proper, placing emphasis on the religious implications and metaphysical forms in which an individual now ‘sensed’ that this initiation had claimed him forever; that his service was now blessed according to his role in life. Practiced for so long, it became ‘institutional’, and was at the very heart and fabric of the West. In the world of Tradition, nothing was more sacred than the spiritual influences that the ‘rite’ could influence through its ‘action’ [i.e. through the ‘ritual’ itself]. The Brahmans of India, for instance, even though scattered throughout its country could, nevertheless, command such respect, almost reverence, enjoying a ‘prestige’ greater than any tyrant or ruler, because they had attained that ‘interconnection’ with the spiritual that the masses had not.

Military parade of patricians in Rome

In Greece, China, and Rome the ‘patrician’ class, the nobility, the ‘aristocrats’, were characterized by possession of knowledge and practice of initiatory rites that were connected to the ‘divine’ power emanating from the founder of a particular Family. This, in turn, was passed down through, and into, the progeny of future generations. It is this ‘supernatural’ element, which, essentially, became the foundation of the ‘idea’ of aristocracy, as well as legitimate royalty. What constituted legitimate ‘aristocracy’ was not merely biological, not only blood or racial selection, but also ‘sacred traditions’. In Germanic and Northern races, as well as the Far East in the ancient classical world, the feeling was the same. Blood was a part, but the main part perhaps, was the ‘second birth’, that element of mystical significance, which separated a ‘divine’ from a ‘non-divine’, hence it was that the plebeians of Rome would never attain the status of the patrician not because of blood, but because the plebes were denied the ‘rite of passage’ in a ‘ritualized sense’. This may not strike the casual student of history as important, but if one were to compare its ‘universal’ brother, the ‘church’, then one can readily understand the mystical importance of ‘baptism’, which at once ‘transforms’ the individual, and ‘secures’ a relationship with God himself. One may trivialize this ‘rite’, as not all are Christians, but they would do so at their peril, since it ‘lives’ in the hearts and minds of millions. It is in the above context that one must look to the origin of the ‘aristocracy’ of the past. Like the plebeians of Rome, it was their ‘lack’ of cult which separated them from the patrician nobility; the same can be said of the  ‘christian cult’ vis a vis, the non-christian by way of baptism.

In the Teutonic nations we find this ‘metaphysical’ tradition, insofar as the ‘chief’ was, at the same time, both ‘priest and king’. Not only this, but a claim of ‘divine’ parentage was the coup de grace amongst his people. This set him apart from all other ‘families’ since he was gifted with  ‘divine’ characteristics. Even when compared to a military leader, who was always looked to with admiration, loyalty, and reverence because of his selfless sacrifice in battle for folk and tribe, it was the ‘class’ of priest/kings which held ultimate sway, going so far as to ‘initiate’ themselves if need be. This process was hardly for the weak however, and included isolation, trials of life and death; outside of this, a ‘person’ was considered [as] a member of the ‘women and children’ until, and not before, he had passed through his initiation. This included the king himself. Aristocracy came from the ‘rite’ of ‘male passage’ from one level into the next, without it, he was of the herd.

In our modern time, aristocracy, like royalty, has merely taken on the more ‘secular’ and ‘political’ manifestations of the mystical. The origins of Aristocracy and Royalty were based on ‘character’, ‘race’, ‘honour’, ‘valor’, and ‘faithfulness’ [noblesse’ d’ epee, and on, noblesse de coeur]. Much later, these criterions were discarded, as was the privileges of ‘blood and tradition’. Whether or not this quality is lacking in our modern age is, at this moment, not the point, what is the point is the ‘structure’ and ‘form’ of the aristocrat; how, and for what reason the aristocrat existed at all.

It was not the ‘intellectuality’ of peers, but of its spirituality, which made this class so predominant. It was never a matter of ‘knowing the law’, or how technical a class of men could be, but rather the ‘spiritual’ trust and direction ‘within’. In an attenuated form, the Knightly Orders of Nobility continued ‘tradition’ proper through its initiations and rituals, one but considers the Teutonic Knights, Knights Templar, the Order of St. John, just to name a few, and created warriors who were both ‘priest and king’, and served as judicial, martial, and ecclesiastical leaders: in short, this was an ‘aristocracy’ based on the ancient laws of the West. Tradition, Honour, valor, and sacrifice were all part of a ‘great’ tradition which, when entered, made them ‘just that much more mighty’ than the common man. These men, indeed, were uncommon.

Carl Steffeck - Knights move into Marienburg (1884)

The aristocracy of the past, that is, the ‘elites’ who the people looked to for leadership, were special; they were special as a class; and they were special because of the seriousness required as part of an ‘overall’ duty to those who were entrusted, in a ‘sacred’ sense, to their care. In modern times, when the West was coerced into disassociating the temporal authority from the spiritual authority, and instead replaced it ‘solely’ with the electoral, thereby allowing the sacred ‘institutions’ to be open to ‘inferior’ types, and the lower social strata, it opened the door to the modern ‘impure’ aristocracy of money. As time progressed, oligarchies, royal hangers-on, and the like turned more to the whims of the modern demos, the mass; no longer was the natural ‘aristocrat’ a trusted and competent leader. Greece, Rome, and now in our modern technics do we see the effects of these descending phases of senility.

Aristocracies are a natural phenomenon. All cultures, in their own way, host both the leaders and followers of the recurring generations. The point herein espoused is that equality is an illusion, and that ‘all’ societies have their elite. In our ‘modern’ aristocracies, we look to the ‘kings’ of Industry, Oil, and commerce instead of Blood and Spirit. The ‘aristocracy’ of wealth may do good things, may provide jobs and the like, but they lack ‘spirit’, and most will agree that these men are in ‘business’ and would laugh if they were asked to conceive of ‘business’ as sacred or spiritual. Wealth is not what concerns us here, but the areas in which this sense, not of ‘duty’ or ‘sense of honour’, or even ‘obliges’ is not the purview of the merchant class, therefore, to consider as a ‘class’, the monied classes as more that mere purveyors of ‘exchange’, then we must look to others as our ‘sacred leaders’ in some other class. Utilitarian democracy lacks the ‘warrior’ sense of ‘faithfulness and honour’; it is replaced with a material and economic character which implies directly that personal convenience and material interest belongs to the merchant and not to the ‘aristocratic’. Aristocracy has given way to the plutocrat; the banker has become larger in life, than the warrior. How we view the relationships between our leaders and ourselves is what will mark the once and future West.

Copyright 2012

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is some merit to the allegations by some, that modern democracy has become the ‘new’ communism of the present age. The ‘egalitarianism’ of Karl Marx, for instance, or Lenin’s political dictums concerning ‘aristocracy’ and ‘monarchy’ included the ‘democratic’ ideal of the ‘masses’ which, taken to the extreme, ushered in the enslavement of the very mass the communists claimed to speak for. Laws of an extremely excessive nature ‘forced’ the mass to accept the ‘leveling’ of their society in the name of ‘progress’. No Hereditary or Traditional institutions were allowed to remain, since it was ‘through these selfsame institutions’ that the ‘people’ had been denied ‘choices’ of their own; to be sure, the decadence of the existing leadership was obvious, and cannot be discounted as reasons for such wide-spread discontent, but to replace the old with democracies of the mob, is to say that the only prescription necessary for an ailment is poison.

The Dialectics of Hegel [George Wilhelm Frederich Hegel, born 1770, Germany] was essentially in opposition to the ‘marxist/lenninist’ doctrine but, nevertheless, was studied by the revolutionist of both the Menshevik party and the Bolsheviks in Russia were not the logical dynamics of ‘negation’ and ‘knowledge’. Hegel was fascinated by the works of Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant, and Goethe and by the revolution of France. Modern philosophy, culture, and society seemed to Hegel fraught with contradictions and tensions [the ‘struggle’ in ‘natural law’], such as those between the ‘subject’ and ‘object’ of knowledge, mind and nature, ‘self’ and ‘other’ [inner and outer man], freedom and authority, knowledge and faith, the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Hegel’s main philosophical project was to take these contradictions and tensions and interpret them as part of a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity that, in different contexts, he called “the absolute idea” or “absolute knowledge”.

According to Hegel, the main characteristic of this unity was that it evolved through and manifested itself in contradiction and negation. Contradiction and negation have a dynamic quality that at every point in each domain of reality – consciousness, history, philosophy, art, nature, society – leads to further development until a rational unity is reached that preserves the contradictions as phases and sub-parts of a larger, evolutionary whole. This whole is mental because it is the mind, which is able to comprehend all of these phases and sub-parts as steps in its own process of comprehension. It is rational because the same, underlying, logical, developmental order underlies every domain of reality and is ultimately the order of self-conscious rational thought, although only in the later stages of development does it come to full self-consciousness. The rational, self-conscious whole is not a thing or being that lies outside of other existing things or minds. Rather, it comes to completion only in the philosophical comprehension of individual existing human minds who, through their own understanding, bring this developmental process to an understanding of itself.

Source