FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Personal Rights

Article 40

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

This principle codified in our Constitution is a Nationalist principle, a common sense and just principle, and it is one which runs somewhat contrary to liberalism which, while seeking to espouse the noble goal of equality of people before the law, does not recognise the inherent differences among people. Liberalism is guilty of confounding equity with equality of moral, cognitive and other differences between people.

Liberalism is also guilty of treating the noble principle of equity as an absolute, which, is foolish. Common sense dictates that the principle of equal treatment of people must be be limited, not only for reasons of practicality but for the reason of self-interest; we as a nation must limit our moral sphere for our own good. Alas, leftists believe that we should extend our nobility to all of humanity. But human affairs are far too complicated for absolutes for one absolute is bound to conflict with another; the best we can do is strive to uphold principles with the knowledge that our principles must sometimes be put aside or sometimes restricted or whatever the case may be.

We are inundated with anti-Hitler propaganda in the Western media; Hitler, Nazism, it is suggested, is the most evil frenzy that ever griped humans. However, there has been worse if we are measuring evil by death toll. For example, from 1945 – 1991 the U.S.S.R killed 22,400,000 people; those people were “class enemies”, repatriated Soviet nationals, dissidents, and national minorities [1]. Let’s compare the death toll of the Communist Soviet Union to that which was totted up during Hitler’s period in power. One figure for the death toll of German Fascism during that period is 10,500,000 [2].

Gripped by Communist thought, the Soviet Union killed almost twice that of Hitler and yet, one would be forgiven for concluding, by viewing Western media, that Hitler was the most evil man in history. And let us not forget that human history is a litany of inter-group violence in which rivers of blood have been spilled. Why then are we inundated with references to the evils of Hitler, Nazism and nationalism and not the evils of communism from which modern liberalism has sprung? Is it, I wonder, to create an association between nationalism and evil in the public mind-set? Given the dominance of liberalism among elites, I would not be surprised if an anti-nationalist agenda was indeed being pursued.

[1] http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/genocidespoliticides.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll

“Thus is born Nihilism, the abysmal hatred of the proletarian of higher form of every sort, of culture as its essence, of society as its upholder and historical product. That anyone should have “form,” master it, feel comfortable with it, whereas the common person feels fettered by it and unable to move freely under it; that tact, taste, a sense for tradition, should be things that belong to highly cultivated beings by inheritance; that there are circles in which a sense of duty and renunciation are not absurd, but lend distinction: all this fills the Nihilist with a dull fury which in earlier times crept away into corners and there foamed at the mouth in the manner of Thersites, but is now widely diffused in the white nations as an actual world-outlook. For the Age has itself become vulgar, and most people have no idea to what extent they are themselves tainted. The bad manners of all parliaments, the general tendency to connive at a rather shady business transaction if it promises to bring in money without work, jazz and Negro dances as the spiritual outlet in all circles of society, women painted like prostitutes, the efforts of writers to win popularity by ridiculing in their novels and plays the correctness of well-bred people, and the bad taste shown even by the nobility and old princely families in throwing off every kind of social restraint and time-honoured custom: all of these go to prove that it is now the vulgar mob that gives the tone.

But while one half of the world smiles at the well-bred forms and ancient customs, because it no longer regards them as inherently imperative and does not suspect that it is a question of “to be, or not to be,” the other half is unchaining the hatred that burns to destroy, the envy of everything that is not available to all, that is prominent and must be pulled down. Not only tradition and custom, but every kind of refinement – beauty, grace, taste in dress, easy good manners, elegance of speech, control of one’s limbs, education and self-discipline – irritate the vulgar soul till its blood boils. A finely formed face, the light and dainty step of a slim foot on the pavement, are contradictions of democracy. The preference of otium cum dignitate to boxing matches and six-day races, the appreciation of fine arts and poetry, even the delight in a well-kept garden of flowers and rare fruits are things to be burnt, smashed, or stamped out. Culture, because of its superiority, is the enemy. Its creations cannot be understood or inwardly assimilated; because they are not available for all they must be annihilated.

Such is the trend of Nihilism. It occurs to no one to educate the masses to the level of true culture – that would be too much trouble, and possibly certain postulates for it are absent. On the contrary, the structure of society is to be levelled down to the standard of the populace. General equality is to reign, everything is to be equally vulgar. The same way of getting money and the same pleasures to spend it on: panem et circenses – no more is wanted, no more would be understood. Superiority, manners, taste, and every description of inward rank are crimes. Ethical, religious, national ideas, marriage for the sake of children, the family, State authority: all these are old-fashioned and reactionary. The picture of the streets of Moscow shows the goal, but let no one suppose that it is a spirit from Moscow that has conquered here. Bolshevism’s home is Western Europe, and has been so ever since the English materialist world-view, which dominated the circles where Voltaire and Rousseau moved as docile pupils, found effective expression in Jacobinism on the Continent. The democracy of the nineteenth century already amounted to Bolshevism: it lacked only the courage of its logical conclusions. It is only a step from the Bastille and the equality-demanding guillotine to the ideals and street-fighting of 1848, the year of the Communist Manifesto, and only a second step from there to the fall of Western Tsarism. Bolshevism does not menace us, it governs us. Its idea of equality is to equate the people and the mob, its liberty consists in breaking loose from the Culture and its society.

***

This revolution does not commence with the materialistic Socialism of the nineteenth century, still less with the Bolshevism of 1917. It has been “in permanence” (to borrow one of its current phrases) since the middle of the eighteenth century. It was then that Rational criticism, proudly named the philosophy of Enlightenment, [14] began to turn its attention from the theological systems of Christianity and the traditional world-philosophy of the scholars – which was nothing more than theology without the will to system – to the facts of actuality, the State, society, and finally the evolved forms of economics. It commenced by depriving the concepts of nation, right, government, of their historical content, and interpreting the difference of rich and poor quite materialistically as a moral contrast, which was insisted upon by the agitators rather than honestly believed. At this point “Political Economy” came in, a materialistic science – founded about 1770 by Adam Smith in association with Hartley, Priestley, Mandeville, and Bentham – that had the presumption to regard men as appurtenances of the economic situation [15] and to “explain” history in the light of prices, markets, and goods.

To it we owe the conception of work, not as the content of life and calling, but as the commodity in which the worker trades. [16] The whole history of the formative passions and the creative characters of strong personalities and races is ignored – the will, focused on commanding and ruling, on power and booty; the inventive urge, hatred, revenge, pride in personal strength and its successes; and equally, on the other side, jealousy, laziness, the poisonous emotions of the inferior. And there remain nothing but the “laws” of money and prices, which find expression in statistics and graphs.

All the better were the professional demagogues, who had learnt nothing but speech-making and pamphlet-writing, able to see the value of these works as a source for first-rate catchwords with which to stir up the masses. In England disturbances began in 1762 with the case of Wilkes, who was condemned for insulting the Government in the press, and thereupon elected again and again to the House of Commons. At meetings and in systematic riots the war-cry was: “Wilkes and Liberty,” rioting for the cause of freedom of the press, universal suffrage, and even a republic. In that period Marat had written, in England and for Englishmen, The Chains of Slavery (1774). The revolt of the American colonies in 1776 and their proclamation of the universal rights of man and the Republic, their trees of liberty and associations were in reality the outcome of English movements during these years. [19] From 1779 onward there arose the clubs and secret societies which spread over the whole country, aimed at revolution, and from 1790, headed by Fox and Sheridan, sent congratulatory addresses, letters, and advice to the Convention and the Jacobins. Had not the reigning English plutocracy been far more vigorous than the cowardly court of Versailles, revolution would have broken out in London earlier than in Paris. [20] The Paris clubs, particularly the Feuillants and Jacobins, were nothing but copies of the English in their programs, their organization of branches all over France, and the form of their agitation; while the English in turn translated “citoyen,” the French form of address between members, into “citizen” and the newly-coined “citizeness,” and adopted, further, the phrase, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” and the designation “tyrants” for kings. Since then, and even in our own time, this remains the form which preparation for revolution takes. It was in those days that there arose the “universal” demand for freedom of the press and of public meetings as a means thereto – the central demand of political Liberalism, the desire to be free from the ethical restrictions of the old Culture. Yet the demand was anything but universal; it was only called so by the ranters and writers who lived by it and sought to further private aims through this freedom. But the older society itself, obsessed as it was by esprit, the “educated” classes corresponding to the philistines of the nineteenth century – that is, the very victims of this freedom – exalted it into an ideal which stood above any criticism of its background. Today, when both the hopes of the eighteenth and the results of the twentieth century lie before us, we may be permitted to discuss it.

Freedom from what, for what? Who financed the press and the agitation? Who gained by it? These liberties have shown themselves everywhere in their true light: as a means to be used by Nihilism in levelling society, and by the underworld in inoculating the masses of the great cities with the particular opinion – it has none of its own – which promises the best result for its aims. [21] This is why these liberties, of which universal suffrage is one, are checked, suppressed, and completely inverted, once they have done their work and given the power into the hands of their exploiters. It was so in Jacobin France in 1793, in Bolshevist Russia, and in Germany’s trade-union Republic of 1918. When were there more suppressions of newspapers, in 1820 or in 1920? Liberty has always been the liberty of those who wish to obtain the power, not to abolish it.

This active Liberalism progresses from Jacobinism to Bolshevism logically. These are not in opposition of thought and will, but are the Early and the Late form, the beginning and the end, of one single movement. It began about 1770 with sentimental “social-political” tendencies: the structure of society according to class and rank was to be destroyed; and there was to be a “Return to Nature,” to the uniformity of the herd. The place of class was to be taken by that which has no class: money and intelligence, counting-house and lecturer’s chair, arithmeticians and clerks; in place of form-ordered existence, life without form, manners, obligations, respect. It was only about 1840 that this “social-political” tendency passed into an “economic-political” one. The scapegoats are now no longer the aristocrats, but the possessors, from peasant to entrepreneur. The disciples of the movement are promised, not equal rights, but the privilege of the unpropertied; not freedom for all, but the dictatorship of the city proletariat, the “workers.” But this represents no change of a world outlook – which was, and still is, materialistic and utilitarian – but solely a change in revolutionary methods. The professional demagogues now mobilize a different section of the nation for class war. At first, about 1770, peasants and craftsman were approached with some hesitation, both in England and France. The cahiers of small-town and country deputies in 1789, which were supposed to represent the “Cry of the Nation,” were composed by professional ranters [22] and were not understood at all by the greater part of the electorate. These classes were too deeply rooted in tradition to be unconditionally available as means and weapons. Without the mob from the eastern suburbs – the fists of the capital, always handy – the Reign of Terror in Paris would have been impossible.

It is not true that the problem was one of economic necessities. Rates and taxes were sovereign rights. Universal suffrage was intended as a blow against the structure of society. Hence the failure of the Convention: peasantry and craftsmen were no reliable following for professional demagogues. They possessed a native sense of respect and self-respect. They had too much instinct and too little town-intelligence. They were industrious and had learnt something; besides, they wished to leave the farm or the workshop to their sons. No permanent effect could be made upon them by programs and catchwords.

Continue reading..

A MATERIAL CIVILIZATION *

René Guénon

From all that has been said so far it already seems to follow clearly that those Orientals who reproach modern Western civilization with being a purely material one are fully justified; it is certainly in this direction exclusively that its development has taken place, and from whatever point of view one may look at it, one is always faced with the more or less direct consequences of this materialization. Nevertheless, there still remains something to add to what we have said on the subject and in the first place it is necessary to explain the different ways in which a word like “materialism” can be understood: if we use it to describe the contemporary world, various people, who do not believe themselves to be materialists at all while at the same time claiming to be modern in their outlook, will not fail to protest in the belief that this is sheer calumny; some further explanation therefore is required in order to forestall any ambiguity which might arise on the subject.

It is a significant fact that the word “materialism” itself dates back only as far as the eighteenth century; it was invented by the philosopher Berkeley, who used it to denote any theory admitting the real existence of matter; it is hardly necessary to say that it is not this use of the word which concerns us here, the question of the existence of matter not being in dispute. Soon afterwards the same word took on a more restricted meaning, which it has retained ever since: it came to denote a conception according to which nothing exists at all except matter and its derivatives; and it is important to emphasize the novelty of such a conception and the fact that it is essentially a product of the modern outlook, corresponding therefore at least to a part of its inherent tendencies.1 But it is above all

* Editor’s Note: Chapter 7 of The Crisis of the Modern World, first published in the French original in 1927.

1 Prior to the eighteenth century there were “mechanistic” theories, from Greek atomism down to Cartesian physics, but mechanism should not be confused with materialism, despite certain affinities which may have subsequently brought about a kind of fellowship between them [Editor’s Note: A footnote included in the Arthur Osborne translation, but not present in the Marco Pallis translation].

15

in a different and much wider, though at the same time quite definite sense that we propose to speak of “materialism” in the present chapter; the word is here taken as referring to an entire mental outlook, of which the conception we have just described amounts to no more than one manifestation among many others, being in itself independent of any philosophical theory. This mental outlook is one which consists in more or less consciously giving preponderance to things belonging to the material order and to preoccupations relating thereto, whether these preoccupations still retain a certain speculative appearance or whether they remain purely practical ones; and it cannot be seriously denied that this is, in fact, the mental attitude of the great majority of our contemporaries.

The whole of the “profane” science which has been developed during the course of recent centuries is confined to the study of the sensible world: its horizon is bounded exclusively by that world and its methods apply within that sphere only; but these methods have been proclaimed “scientific” to the exclusion of all others, an attitude which amounts to repudiating the existence of any science not dealing with material things. Among those who think thus, and even among those who have devoted their lives especially to the sciences in question, there are however many who would refuse to call themselves “materialists” or to accept the philosophical theory which bears that name; there are even some who readily profess a religious faith, the sincerity of which is beyond question; yet their scientific outlook does not differ appreciably from that of avowed materialists. From the religious point of view it has often been debated whether modern science ought to be denounced as atheistical or as materialistic, but this question, more often than not, has been wrongly framed; it is quite apparent that such a science does not deliberately profess either atheism or materialism, and that it is content to ignore certain things as a result of its preconceptions, though without formally denying them as this or that philosopher might do; in connection with modern science, therefore, one can only speak of a de facto materialism, or of what we would willingly term a practical materialism; but the evil is then perhaps all the more serious in that it penetrates deeper and is more widely diffused.

A philosophical attitude can be something quite superficial, even among “professional” philosophers; furthermore, there are certain mentalities which shrink from an actual negation, but which

16

can accommodate themselves to an attitude of complete indifference; and this is the most dangerous attitude of all, since in order to deny something it is still necessary to think about it to some extent, however slightly, whereas an attitude of indifference makes it possible to avoid giving any thought to it whatsoever. When an exclusively material science sets itself up as the only possible science and when men have got into the habit of accepting as an unquestionable truth the doctrine that no valid knowledge can exist apart from it, and when all the education which is imparted to them tends to inculcate the “superstition” of that science (or “scientism” as it should then be termed), how can such men fail to be anything but materialists in practice, or in other words, how can they fail to have all their preoccupations turned in the direction of matter?

It seems that nothing exists for modern man other than what can be seen and touched; or at least, even if they admit theoretically that something else may exist they hasten to declare it not merely unknown but “unknowable,” which absolves them from having to give it further thought. If nevertheless some persons still are to be found who try to form some kind of idea of an “other world,” relying as they do on nothing but their imagination they picture it in the likeness of the terrestrial world and transfer to it all the conditions belonging to that world, including space and time and even a sort of “corporeality”; in speaking elsewhere of spiritualistic conceptions we have given some very striking examples of this kind of grossly materialized representation; but if the beliefs there referred to represent an extreme case in which this particular feature is exaggerated to the point of caricature, it would be a mistake to suppose that spiritualism and the sects more or less akin to it retain the monopoly of this kind of thing. Indeed, in a more general way, the intrusion of the imagination into realms where it can yield no useful results, and which ought normally to remain closed to it, is a fact which in itself shows very clearly how incapable modern Westerners have become of raising themselves above the realm of the senses; there are many who do not know how to distinguish between “conceiving” and “imagining,” and some philosophers, such as Kant, go so far as to declare “inconceivable” and “unthinkable” everything that is not capable of representation. In the same way everything that goes by the name of “spiritualism” or “idealism” usually amounts to no more than a sort of transposed materialism; this applies not only to what we have described as “neo-spiritualism,” but

17

also to philosophical spiritualism, although the latter considers itself to be the very opposite of materialism. The fact is that spiritualism and materialism, in the philosophical sense of these expressions, have no significance apart from one another: they are simply two halves of the Cartesian dualism, whose radical separation has been turned into a kind of antagonism; and, since then, the whole of philosophy has oscillated between these two terms without being able to pass beyond them. Spiritualism, in spite of its name, has nothing to do with spirituality; its conflict with materialism can be of no interest to those who place themselves at a higher standpoint and who see that these opposites are fundamentally very near to being equivalent, their supposed opposition reducing itself, on many points, to a merely verbal disagreement.

The moderns, generally speaking, cannot conceive of any other science except that which deals with things that can be measured, counted, or weighed, material things that is to say, since it is to these alone that the quantitative point of view is applicable; and the claim to reduce quality to quantity is most characteristic of modern science. In this direction the stage has been reached even of supposing that there can be no science at all, in the real sense of the word, except where it is possible to introduce measurement, and that there can be no scientific laws except those which express quantitative relations; Descartes’ “mechanism” marked the birth of this tendency, which has grown more and more pronounced ever since, the rejection of Cartesian physics notwithstanding, for it is not a tendency connected with any particular theory but with an altogether general conception of scientific knowledge. Nowadays people try to apply measurement even in the field of psychology, which lies beyond its reach from its very nature; they end by ceasing to understand that the possibility of measurement rests solely upon a property inherent in matter, namely its indefinite divisibility, unless indeed it be supposed that the same property is to be found in everything that exists, which amounts to materializing everything. As we have already remarked, it is matter which is the principle of division and pure multiplicity; the predominance attributed to the quantitative point of view, and extended, as we have already shown, to the social domain, does therefore indeed constitute materialism in the sense mentioned above, although it need not necessarily be connected with philosophical materialism, which, as a matter of fact, it preceded historically in the course of development of the

18

tendencies inherent in the modern outlook. We will not dwell upon the error of seeking to reduce quality to quantity or upon the inadequacy of all those attempts at explanation conforming more or less to the mechanistic type; that is not our present purpose and we will only remark, in this connection, that even within the sensible order a science of this type has but little connection with reality, of which the greater part must necessarily lie outside its scope.

While speaking of “reality” another fact should be mentioned, which might easily be overlooked by many, but which is very significant as a sign of the mentality we are describing: we refer to the habit of using the word “reality” exclusively to denote reality belonging to the sensible order. As language is the expression of the mentality of a people or of a period, one must conclude from this that for those who speak in this manner everything that cannot be grasped by the senses is illusory and even totally non-existent; it is possible that they are not fully conscious of the fact, but this negative conviction is none the less the underlying one, and if they assert the contrary one may be sure that this assertion is only the expression of some much more superficial element in their mentality, although they happen not to be conscious of the fact, and that their protest may even be a purely verbal one.

If this should seem to be an exaggeration one has only to try and ascertain, for example, what the supposed religious convictions of a great many people amount to; a few notions learnt by heart in a purely academic and mechanical way without any real assimilation, notions to which they have never given any serious consideration, but which they retain in their memory and repeat on occasion because they form part of a certain formal and conventional attitude, which is all they are able to understand by the word religion. We have already referred to this “minimizing” of religion, of which the “verbalism” we mentioned represents one of the latest phases: it is this which explains why many so-called “believers” in no wise fall short of the “unbelievers” in the matter of practical materialism; we shall return to this question later, but first we must conclude our investigation of the materialistic nature of modern science, since this is a subject that requires to be treated from various angles.

Continue reading end of page 19

It is common place in the present day for “cultural leaders” i.e. journalists and politicians (whom I believe rank among vermin) to denounce racial separatists as immoral. By looking at common place literature one would be led to believe that their view is representative of the citizenry of not only Ireland but all citizens of the West. This inference, I think, would be mistaken. The view of “cultural leaders” or if you prefer, ruling vermin, seems to be a minority view. That is, the majority of ordinary citizens do not deem the principal of racial separatism to be immoral, this is at least how it seems to myself.

Anyway, the point I wish to make is that while we racial separatists may be held to be immoral in the present day (at least by some) and proponents of what I call “multiethnicism” are held to be virtuous, this state of order will not hold into the future. I affirm, with strong confidence, that the posterity of the West will hold present day cultural leaders to be reckless immoral scum and they will hold we so-called “racists” to be virtuous. I believe that posterity will do this because from the present demographic situation and immigration policies of the present day West will follow undreamt social upheaval – possibly race wars and genocides among other things. Whatever of the details, there will be, as I said, mass upheaval and posterity will know who to blame.

It is a dream of mine that we nationalists will perturb the course of history upon which the West is presently traversing. With this dream in mind the Fourteen Words seem apt: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. May my dream be realised for the sake of our posterity.

By Mike Smith.

Reprinted from: www.globalpolitician.com

“Out of the dominant characteristics of both belligerents a certain center of gravity develops, the hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be directed.”
– Carl von Clausewitz

It was the seventies and I was a young lad growing up in South Africa when I first encountered Political Correctness. Of course I did not know it was called “Political Correctness” at the time. I remember hearing the grownups talking about a new law that came out prohibiting Whites from referring to Blacks as “Kaffirs”, Cape Coloureds as “Hotnots” and Indians as “Coolies”. Even then I found it a ridiculous law and could not believe the grownups actually taking it seriously.

Today we see the results of this Marxist brainwashing in the behavior of our people. White people in South Africa are so fearful of offending others, they constantly look over their shoulders, making sure the door is closed and lowering their voices before they say anything that could be remotely considered derogatory towards Blacks. Even then they tone it down, irrespective of the other person being a close friend or family member. One is never sure how the other person is going to react. Nobody wants to be branded a racist, sexist, or homophobe.

Where did it all come from, all this Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Affirmative Action, Media control, Control of our education system, etc…? More importantly, how do we turn the tide on it?

The previous National Party government in South Africa called it “The Total Onslaught of Communism”, but what is it exactly and who is behind this Communist onslaught on Western Civilization?

We have to remember that if we fight Marxist terrorists in the bush or townships; we are merely hacking away at the branches. What we need to do is go after the roots, but where do the roots of Marxist Ideology lie? Moscow? Beijing?

No… It is in Frankfurt, Germany and it is called, “The Institute for Social Research” (Institut für Sozialforschung) and was found in 1924, better known today as the Frankfurt School; a Think-tank of Marxist Scientific ideology.

In order to push back this Marxist tide that is hell bent on ruling the world, we need to take cognizance of the Frankfurt School, where it comes from, what their goals and tactics are and then arming ourselves ideologically against their poison.

A brief History of Marxism and the Frankfurt school

Born in 1818, Karl Marx is seen as the father of Communism. When one reads his biography, one cannot help but see Marx as a despicable human being. Marx was a typical rich boy. He was a school bully, spoilt brat and tortured his own sisters.
He was a poor student who was more in pubs than in class, mixing with the lowlifes of society. As a student he wrote a play full of Satanic and homosexual fantasies and over spilling with other dark passions. He also wrote a poem in which he kills his love, because he could not have her. What Marx could not control, he wanted to destroy.
He was what we would call today a sponging professional student who lived off the money he got from his family, dabbled in just about every discipline offered at the universities of Bonn and Berlin and eventually obtaining his Ph.D from the Diploma sausage machine of Jena.
He was a bad journalist and editor who got fired and kicked out of countries such as France, Belgium and Germany.

In 1848, at the age of thirty, Marx, with the help of his lapdog Friedrich Engels wrote “The Manifesto of the Communist Party”. It attacked and exploded against private property, justice, civilization, et al and it was largely plagiarized from other sources. From the filthy French revolutionist Jean Paul Marat, he stole phrases such as “The workers have no country” and “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains”.

From Louis Auguste Blanqui, he stole “The dictatorship of the Proletariat”.
Progressive income tax had already been proposed by William Pitt in 1799. He further stole the slogan, “Working men of all countries Unite” from Karl Schapper.

He then ended up in England, the only country who would allow him in. He was penniless and heavily indebted.

Marx uses to pub crawl and dominate every conversation. Anybody who opposed his views were scoffed and laughed at. He developed a weakness for gambling and extravagance. Many times Engels use to bail him out of trouble and Engels even raised the illegitimate child of Marx by his maid servant, claiming it was his own.

Marx hated capitalism and wanted to destroy it and everything linked to it, basically because he could not take care of his own personal finances. Marx wanted to destroy civilization.

Marx wrote a classical work that is today regarded as the Marxian Bible, called “Das Kapital”. It was such a load of nonsense that economists of the time all shot it down and it self-destructed almost at the same time that it left the pen of this evil man. Over the years, his critics grew fewer and shallower. All those who share Marx’s feelings cannot care much about the correctness of his logic.

Marx died in 1883 without tasting the dictatorship he thirsted after his entire life, but he left behind a trail of poison that would be used by the Bolsheviks and Communists to kill more than 100 million people.

Marxian Communists

After Marx’s death, his disciples hoped that a World War such as in 1914 would stimulate the working classes of Europe to overthrow their governments. Their theory was that people would have more in common as poor workers than National identities. This did not happen and soldiers rallied towards their countries’ flags. The Marxists eventually won a coup in Russia in 1917, but the idea of Communism would not spread. Strange how the Communists even today claim that their ideology is a superior form of government, but always experience problems implementing it.

It was clear that there was something wrong with classical Marxist thought, because it could not be applied to modern times. Marx had to be adapted in order to fit into modern times.

Two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary . These men were basically the fathers of modern Western Marxism. According to them the Communist struggle cannot succeed unless the intrinsic culture of societies are broken down, which includes religions. So as true Marxist disciples they set about thinking up ideas of how to destroy civilization. One of the first things Georg Lukacs did in Hungary when he became deputy commissar for culture in 1919, was to introduce sex education in schools. There we were, thinking it was a new thing!

Felix Weil

In 1923, rich boy, Felix Weil financed the First Marxist Work Week (Erste Marxistische Arbeitswoche) in the German town of Ilmenau and in 1924 The Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), the Frankfurt School was born.

Critical Theory; Tactics of the Frankfurt school.

It is difficult to find a definition for Critical Theory. Attempting to define it is like wrapping up four blown-up balloons in Christmas wrapping. It appears to be formless and shapeless and spread across every discipline of study.

For the people from the Frankfurt School it was not enough to just repeat or parrot the writings of Marx. They had to look for means to advance, refine and build on his ideas. They had to find ways of criticizing society more effectively so they could constantly push their Marxist agenda.

Basically Critical Theory is Deconstruction through Constant Careful Criticism. Anybody who doubts the effectiveness of Critical Theory only needs to look at Helen Suzman, who for years was the only female opposition parliamentarian during the South African Apartheid years. She applied this technique very well and was instrumental in deconstructing the National Apartheid system.

Through the careful application of history, psychology, philosophy, economics, politics and social sciences, critical theory forms the basis of anti social establishments such as feminism, gay rights, black rights and environmentalism. They are all forms to break down Western Society. They further call for a society of “polymorphous perversity” as Marcuse wrote in Eros and Civilization. In this book he advocates “free love” and coins the phrase, “Make love not war”.

Each Critical Theorist uses their particular skills, talents, and knowledge to contribute to the massive endeavor of Critical Theory. All this political correctness that we see on television and in movies, what we experience in the mainstream media, all comes from our Marxist Intellectual friends at the Frankfurt school.

There is a Critical Theory on Art, Science, Religion, Economics, Politics and Education…just about every sphere of our Western Society that was built up over thousands of years. What these diabolical theorists want to do is tear it all down, stamp on it and burn it to ashes so they can offer us their perverse Marxist versions.

By constantly criticizing section in our society such as the church or the universities, they bring about change and “fix” things that were not broken in the first place. They then change it into their Marxist mold.

They claim to look for human emancipation from oppression, but to them humans can only be free under Communism and by accepting their ideas. The reason why people do not accept their nonsense is because people have wealth, cultures, languages and religions. So they set off on trying to find ways in which they could break down these “stumbling blocks” of capitalism, culture and religion in such a way that it is practical and morally acceptable to society.

These Marxists do not care how many happy families they destroy, as long as they can introduce their beliefs and rise to power. Breaking down traditional family structures by targeting White Males is one of their major aims. The aim is the structural change of the bourgeois nuclear family and the weakening of the authoritarian position of the father.

Take the feminist movements for instance. Constantly criticize men and tell women their husbands are drunks and women-beaters and get them to abandon their husbands. Create Affirmative Action for women and other races and, the White Male, the backbone of Western Society, is sidelined and reduced to little more than an ornament.

Further, discipline is broken down. Parents can be fined for chastising their children and even thrown in prison on charges of “child abuse”.

One of their key tactics is the usage of language as a weapon and it is what Marx called, false consciousness. When they use words like “Freedom” it means slavery, “Democracy” means a one party totalitarianism and “facing challenges” means “We are not going to do a thing about it”. “National Liberation” means “Communist rebellion”. All these words are semantically separated from their true meaning.

These people claim one thing, but mean another. They would claim to strive for a society where people are free and tolerant to each other and where they are free to assemble and communicate openly, but only as long as everyone parrots the Marxist chorus, because no opposition theories are allowed or tolerated.

Today, most of these Marxist Critical theorists from the Frankfurt School are women and they teach at our Western Universities, such as Agnes Heller, Nancy Fraser and Seyla Benhabib.

Defying Marxist Critical theory

What I described above is only the basics of Critical Theory. One can write volumes on the subject. However, now that we know where it comes from, and some of the tactics used by these Marxists proponents, we can start formulating a counter offensive.

A Counter Anti-Marxist, Enlightenment Movement

We as the new generation of thinkers need to establish a worldwide movement of “Marxist Rejectionism”. We need to sniff the Marxists out, ridicule their theories, debate them into the dung they risen from and reject them with contempt. A new state of mind needs to be developed amongst our young students at Universities, a new consciousness that rejects Marxist thought. Conservative thinkers from across the world need to exchange ideas on internet forums and elsewhere and turn the entire world into one huge Conservative Think-tank.

Political Incorrectness

We need to defy Political Correctness at every level. We need to hold PC institutions such as the media responsible for obscuring the truth about the origins of violent crime and those responsible for it in our countries. We need to point out those unproductive members of our society who sponge on the tax and sweat of others; those who keep on having babies when they can hardly look after themselves. We should point out the illegal immigrants, drug dealers and organised criminals in our societies and not be scared to call a spade a spade.

Nationalism

We need to defy this multiculturalist’s nonsense and we have to love our own individual culture, language and religion. We have to teach our history, values and cultures to our children. We have to sustain and promote our cultures at every opportunity. Nationalism is the nemesis of Marxism and the reason why they try to destroy it by selling us on Multiculturalism. Rejecting Multiculturalism and embracing Nationalism is a sure fire way to counter Critical Theory. We just have to be proud of our National identities, heroes, sports teams, etc.

Functionalism

Just like our bodies are made up of various different parts that all works together to make us what we are, just like a ship’s engine room is made up of millions of parts that eventually gets it from point A to B, society is made up of various sections (family, education, law, media, etc) that eventually make society what it is. Just like in our bodies, if one section malfunctions or contracts a cancer, it is not long before the entire body suffers. In society it is the same. What these Marxists with their “Critical Theory” aims for is to spread their cancer through every section of society so that society eventually dies. Unless we take cognisance of the interdependency of various sections of society and the attacks we are facing, we are left vulnerable to the Marxist cancer of “Critical theory”. We should be vigilant in every sphere of society and block and destroy these carcinogenic ideas, the moment we spot them.

Education

We as parents should realize that we are the primary educators of our children, not the schools. Often we as parents neglect the education of our children and allow the Marxist education systems to indoctrinate our children, especially with regards to history.

It is simply unacceptable that one cannot get an advanced degree in political science at any university nowadays while denouncing Marxist ideology. Try it and you quickly find a myriad of obstacles placed in your way. Students of all disciplines are penelised if they do not follow the Liberal thought pattern and rewarded for complying. This shameless indoctrination of our youngsters, with our tax money, should be eradicated. At university our young people should research objectively and challenge their Marxist ideological peers and criticize their theories in every discipline.

Religion

We should practice our religions and oppose the Marxist attacks on our values and beliefs. Marxist are not ordinary atheists, they hate all forms of religions and want to substitute religion with Marxist ideology. When we forsake our religions, we give Marxism a foothold in our minds. If a vacuum exists, Marxism will take its place. Religion also plays a big role in National identity and therefore it is important for us to defend it from the Critical theorist onslaught.

Positivism

Basically what Auguste Comte says is, “Don`t come with theological and metaphysical nonsense, give me scientific evidence and proof.”

I like Comte. One of the best examples we see today of Comte in practice, is modern day insurance companies. I find it comical how Political Correctness makes way for logic, mathematics and science when large sums of money have to be paid out.

Family Values

The hierarchy of family should be respected and practiced. Children should have respect for their elders and parents should discipline their children. Love, respect and support between husband and wife are of great importance and they set the example for their children.

Social change

One thing the Frankfurt school is good at… and that was the reason for their creation in the first place, is that Marxian theory could not fit into modern reality and basically stalled the advancement of Marxism. They had to study modern societies carefully and constantly adapt to be able to spread their poison. Likewise we have to constantly adapt our strategies to the realities of modern society. Society is dynamic, not static and we have to constantly adapt to be effective.

Conclusion

When we are educated and informed about the deceptive tactics of the Marxist Frankfurt School, their tactics loses its effectiveness. No longer will we listen to their drivel and lies anymore, because we will see it for what it is; Marxist Critical Theory and we will be able to challenge them and tell them to their faces what we think of their diabolical ideas. Marxism is an ideology that leads to the most brutal and bloodiest form of government ever created, namely Communism. Under Communism, individual property rights disappear, the production of wealth is made almost impossible and there is virtually no incentive to produce.

Communism has only one method of production: through hard physical labor. The incentive to produce is achieved through fear of death. The government slaughters citizens to keep the rest in line. There is not one successful Communist or Socialist country in the entire world. Any government backed by Marxist Ideology eventually fails. To detract the population from its failures, these governments blame their failures on someone else. Communism lives on a blame culture of scapegoats and these scapegoats should be killed of course. This form of government leads to poverty, starvation and slaughter of large amounts of its citizens as can be seen in modern day Zimbabwe. In South Africa the slide towards Communism started in 1994, because the entire government is backed by Marxists ideologists.

The goal of the Marxist Ideologists of the Frankfurt School is to bring about a global Communist state. Unless we actively start opposing Marxism and their methods of Critical Theory, nothing will stop them from achieving this goal. But we can turn the tide…Individually we can make a difference through educating ourselves, our children and others. Collectively we can crush Marxism. “Conservative men of the world Unite!”

Oswald Spengler in IF library.