FREE ESSAY ON COMMUNISM IN THE WORLD

COMMUNISM IN THE WORLD

Both communism and liberalism maintain with complete certainty that the destruction of the
existing society will give birth to a new form of human existence at the least
approaching utopia. They are what Daniel Chirot dubbed 'tyrannies of certitude'.
A particular group of people has been responsible for blocking the happy development for
centuries. In the case of communism it was capitalists, in the case of liberalism it is
'racists' - nearly all of whom are of course white. No! One must be harsh to build the
new society and not make excuses. All white people are 'racists' and must pay the
inevitable penalty. Few people know that the word 'racism' was invented by Leon Trotsky,
one of the principal architects of the communist nightmare. 
The rightness of the cause dictates that a political architecture of lies rather than
reasoned argument is permissible if necessary to bring about the result. Since no one
will willingly give up their human identity, and that is what we are being asked to do,
lies will, in fact, be indispensable. The communists aimed at eradicating 'bourgeois
consciousness'. The liberals are systematically eradicating our history and identity from
schools to ensure pliancy before the onslaught of anti-white bias in everything from
newspapers to employment law. In this they are unlikely to succeed. The Russian and
Yugoslav experience under communism has shown the persistency of racial and cultural
identity. 
Doubters concerning the wisdom of the new arrangements are to be hunted down and
destroyed - under communism they were dubbed capitalist spies and saboteurs, under
liberalism it is 'racists' - a sound catch-all term of abuse for any white person
opposing their own marginalisation. 
The 'racists' are well-organised and to blame for nearly everything which goes wrong
according to authority, just like the 'counter-revolutionaries, western spies and
saboteurs' in the heyday of communism. Under communism the newspapers would say
'capitalist spy ring raided'. Under liberalism we read 'police target racist groups'. In
both cases good citizens are to congratulate themselves on the skill and wisdom of the
authorities in protecting them from disruptions to the relentless march towards paradise
on earth so evident on Soviet collective farms and now in Britain's inner-cities. 
If communism was not delivering the goods then even more stringent action was needed to
eradicate the source of the trouble. Since it had been scientifically proven that
communism would deliver, what possible other cause could there be for failure except
disruption by malcontents? If people do not actually enjoy mass immigration and the
so-called 'multiracial society', it must surely be the work of similar malcontents.
Liberal theory is flawless. Like communism, it presents itself as scientifically-based -
an abundancy of pseudo-sociological tosh underpins its thinking - and dictates a
historically-inevitable outcome in which we all celebrate the fact that we have as little
in common with the people we live with as possible. Supposed 'historical inevitability'
as a weapon of political language has been filched from communism and creeps into every
liberal initiative. It is used, for example, to forward the European federal superstate
project. 
Both liberals and communists maintain that their systems can never be wrong. It is rather
like the jesuitical argument that no innocent person has ever been hanged. Since all
those hanged have been convicted by a court, they are by legal definition guilty! It is
this feature - the refusal to admit to possible error in the theory - which makes
liberalism as totalitarian in nature as communism and why it must be unmasked as the
monster it really is. The rulers, too, can never be wrong since they are applying a
system which can never err. They are relieved of all responsibility. Notice how no one in
government within Britain today takes responsibility for anything! Blair has brought the
tactic to a fine art. 
How is it that white people could been so hoodwinked as many are in our country? A system
which targets us for destruction is met with passivity and acquiescence. We can learn a
lot from the experience of communism. 
Most people assume that government is broadly competent. The latest theory must have some
sense in it, people say, or it would not be introduced. New theories which claim to be
idealistic enjoy an aura and are given a chance. That is what happened under communism.
Sufficient people enthusiastically supported the experiment to carry along the rest -
with plentiful dollops of intimidation against anyone who became too vocal in opposition.
Most people, once they have passively accepted an ideas system, dislike it being
challenged, since it implies criticism of their judgement. Those who draw attention to
flaws provoke psychological discomfort. Anger and perplexity is a common response. None
of us likes to seem made to appear foolish, and especially when merely to hear the
message is thought to put us at risk. Later on no one wishes to admit that they were ever
a believer. 
Under communism, only the tiniest fraction of people expressed open dissent against the
system. The system tried to draw in as many people as possible as accomplices. One of the
most effective means was the threat that a failure to actively denounce opponents of the
ideology would mean classification as a supporter. 
We see this mechanism particularly clearly in a Britain where a political, police,
teaching or media career means a requirement to offer regular ritual tributes to the
contribution made by immigrants, and little reference to white people beyond regret at
occasional backsliding from the requirement that they voluntarily marginalise themselves
within the society. The most obnoxious exponents are the army of white media apparatchiks
who draw a regular thirty pieces of silver in reward for stabbing their fellow white
people in the backs. The most pathetic are senior police officers with their vomit-making
'confessions' of 'institutional racism' before tribunals like that of Sir William
Macpherson. They resemble the unfortunates who were tortured by the Inquisition to obtain
admissions about the poisoning of wells with powdered toads. 
Most of the populations of the formerly communist countries now congratulate themselves
on having been opponents of communism. In reality, most would have crossed the road to
avoid a dissident if they had met one at the time. As a communist secret policeman told
one dissenter: You are an intelligent man. Why oppose the system when it only brings you
trouble to do so. Yet the system eventually collapsed. A small number of open doubters is
no measure of the worth of a political system, or of its prospects for permanence. 
Lenin's definition of a revolutionary situation was that the rulers could no longer rule
in the same way, and the ruled no longer accepted the old ways. What finished communism
was precisely what brought it about, but it took a long time before the bankruptcy of the
system led to such a parting of the ways between rulers and ruled. 
Communism could not provide even the material things. Liberalism does better in material
terms but cannot provide meaning to life and human identity. Sooner or later, the
increasingly open repression of white people will lead to its fall. Liberal actions are
constantly justified by the claim to be preventing inequality, but end up as a series of
attacks on white people. Sooner or later, white people will use up the last of their
goodwill and the national genie will leave the bottle. As under communism, even the
leaders will no longer be able to believe their own lies. 
One wonders what goes through the minds of leading members of the Labour Party, including
Blair himself, who preach the virtues of the multiracial multicultural comprehensive
school, while making sure that their own children do not attend them. The germ of doubt
must eventually penetrate even their professionally duplicitous minds. Duplicity about
schools is a liberal counterpart of the racket which operated under communism where
special shops provided Communist Party members with luxuries unavailable to the mass of
the population. 
The methods by which the main political parties maintain power in Britain - largely
psychological warfare involving ludicrous claims that white people are a 'guilty race',
but also some some violence, and occasional show trials like that of Nick Griffin - will
eventually no longer work. Any relaxation of control to placate the populace in those
circumstances would lead to demands for more freedom and would soon be reversed, as
happened under communism at the end of the Prague Spring of 1968. 'Socialism with a human
face' would soon be no socialism at all. Liberalism with racial and cultural identity
would be a contradiction. No such experiments are being tried at present in Britain. The
psywar against white people continues unrelentingly 24 hours a day. Like communism,
liberalism has nothing new to try in a situation of public discontent but only more of
the same, which will provoke further resentment. That is its fatal internal
contradiction. Reinforcement of unsatisfactory policies is the answer when the regime
finds itself in difficulty. 
Political correctness following the Steven Lawrence enquiry has led to a massive increase
in violent street crime in London as the police retreat from enforcing the law. The
Government's answer is to increase the levels of political correctness within the police
just as the communists tried to deal with unrest by reinforcing repression. The case of
crime is a particularly telling example. The difficulty for liberal ideologues is that
political correctness was supposed to remove resentments which were the principal cause
of crime - supposedly an expression of revolt against oppression, sexism, racism and so
on. What if the theory fails and measures to remove its supposed causes make it worse?
The theory cannot be seen to be wrong, so the very measures which have failed must be
reinforced on the basis that they have not been introduced vigorously enough! This causes
more problems and resentments. Minority racial groups retreat from the multiracial
project to protect themselves. The rulers are forced by their own logic to dig their own
metaphorical graves. 
People will eventually stop listening, no longer believe in the regime's ability to deal
with their problems, its moral legitimacy or its basic assumptions, and Lenin's
precondition for change will appear. The speed with which such watersheds can sometimes
erupt was the lesson of 1989. We should not assume that change will necessarily occur in
such a dramatic form in liberal Britain. What is more likely, given the temperament of
the British people, is a gradual erosion of credibility attached to the regime. As with
communism, a quiet subversion will undermine it, even if open revolt is impossible. 
Chipping away quietly, we will, sooner or later, bring down the evil which intends a slow
genocide of our people. The madmen who have taken over our country will be seen as they
really are. 
It is promising an "ideal world" that cannot be realized for the simple fact, that an
ideal world is unrealizable. In the contrary to the Christianism it is promising this
ideal world here on the Earth, during our earthly life. The real aim of Communism is to
exploit masses of ordinary people and keep them humbly submitted and obedient through
fear and blackmail, in order to provide an easy and luxurious life for a narrow class of
the nomenklatura (people holding high positions in the governing regime and their
families). Unfortunately, when you realize what is the real face of this regime, it is
usually too late. The most serious damage that caused 40 years of Communism to my country
is the deformation of people's way of thinking, of their spirit. It will take at least
one generation to repair this. But in spite of it, I am convinced that Communism has lost
in my country for all times and will disappear in the same trash-bin of the history as
Nazism did. Freedom has a very sweet taste and once you taste it, you never want to go
back. Today, young people in my country perceive Communism as something assimilated to a
dinosaur or any other prehistoric subject, and I do not believe that they would ever
succumb to its evil charm, simply because they are no more insulated from the outside
world, as the generation of my parents and mine were, they travel around the world, surf
on the Web, send messages to friends with their funny cellular phones and break driving
mirrors of parked cars and the windows of MacDonald's during their Global Street Parties,
exactly the same way as kids in the rest of the free world do it. They have to face
insecurity, unemployment, drugs and all those things that make part of life today. This
is the price that has to be paid for the democracy, and that is right because every good
thing must be earned. Many people of my generation feel having been "sacrificed" in the
name of the transition to a market oriented society. They do not realize that in fact the
destiny offered them a very rare and precious gift: After years of submission and fear,
they've got an opportunity to discover what is it to be free and responsible for
one-self. The trouble is that the life under a Communist regime did not prepare them for
it, and they feel lost. I visited many post-Communist countries and I can confirm that
this is a common problem in all of them. We need the West to be patient with us and to
help us not only financially, but also morally. And my personal belief is, that the best
way to improve this sad situation is to offer opportunities to study and to gain a
working experience abroad to our young people - because practice is always the best
teacher. Speaking about a moral support, I mean the fact that the "citizen-society" is
still very undeveloped in my country. We lack of experiences in this field as almost all
citizen movements were forbidden under the Communist regime. And many people are still
afraid to get publicly involved and feel helpless against the authorities because they
haven't realized yet, that times changed.
Have nice day,
There was a time in which the mere mention of communism struck fear in the hearts of men
and women across the world. Infact, before its existence, the royalty and religious
leaders of Europe and Asia despised it. Why? Because it threatened to abolish the tyranny
that ruled the world for thousands of years. For the latter half of mankind's existence,
there has been a struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. If all people are
equal then there can be no one to oppress or so professes the theory.
Has communism been successful? Some would say yes while others may say no. Some may say
that the Soviet Union fell not because of communism, but rather as a result of the greed
of a few men. Men who made themselves billionaires while leaving their citizens to starve
on the streets. China is still communist but are its citizens content? It seems as if the
more the working class fights for equality the more oppressed they become. Does communism
not profess that it will gain equality for all? Then why do communist citizens strive to
survive.
Does it have to be this way? Perhaps. Until men are able to overcome their own selfish
needs and greed, until men are able to realize that no one is better than another, until
men are able to overcome prejudice and racism, there will be no equality. This is why
much of the world's people suffer. This is why Soviet citizens starved on the streets.
This is why communism has yet to be successful in life. It might just be that the fears
of McCarthyism and the remnants of the Cold War hatreds are not because communism is evil
or wrong but because the world is not yet ready for its equalities.
As the rest of this site continues, it will take you on a tour of the construction of
communism as well as lead you to its modern day affects. If you have a conflicting view
on the subject, please e-mail me with it so that I might be able to open my mind. Thank
you and enjoy the site.
Communism did not just appear over night. It was and always has been an idea and
philosophy that occasionally has been experimented with. This philosophy was probably
first in Plato's Republic and early Christian communes but has remained the same for over
two thousand years. It is the idea that through working together, a community will be
able to supply all of its citizens with an equal amount of food and supplies and housing.
In order to obtain this, a country must first revolt against its current form of
government. Ultimatley the people would be working together smoothly and not need a
government with leaders. However, until communism is able to reach its ultimate point the
country must be led by certain leaders. This is where the experiments have all seen there
downfalls with the exception of China and Cuba. It has been because of the leaders'
hoarding of money and focusing on their own issues rather than those of the people that
has led each government to eventually crumble without ever reaching its goal.
In the 19th century, two men, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, sat down in January of 1848
and began to write the Communist Manifesto. This work has been thought of as the bible of
the Communist Movement. As a result of this paper, the world was enlightened by the
theory. In 1917 a Czar ruled Russia began its revolution led by Vladimir Lenin. Thus was
the beginning of one of the world's largest Communist experiments to occur thus far in
history.
However, by no means was Lenin an uneducated or stupid man. Infact he was one of the most
brilliant men of the time. It was just that his love of power and his political
intolerence led to his hipocracy. He began the Bolshevik tradition of waging war on
intellectual dissidents - free thinkers. Some would say this was clever for surpressing
those who would overthrow a government while others would say this to be a mistake by
stifiling the evolvers of society. Lenin would not have much time to care because he died
after a series of strokes in 1924. Two years before Lenin's death, a man was perhaps more
ruthless than Lenin was made leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. That man
was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili or Joseph Stalin. He adopted the pseudonym Stalin,
meaning man of steel, about 1910. Stalin like his predessor was a very pedantic man. It
was because of that that he earned a full scholarship to the Tbilisi Theological
Seminary. It was while studing for his priesthood that he read the forbidden literature
of Karl Marx. He quit seminary to become a full time revolutionary. Stalin was opposed
much by the authorities and was considered to be an up-and-coming follower of the
Socialist-Democratic Party. It was because of his actions against the Czar and support of
the party that Lenin helped him rise to power in the party. In 1922, Stalin was
proclaimed secretary-general of the Soviet Union. During the late 1920s, the U.S.S.R.
suffered a lag in agricultural production. Stalin reacted by beginning a nationwide
offensive against the peasantry. Unknown millions died as a result. However, his
industrial campains of the late 1930s enabled the Soviet Union to rise to the foremost
rank of industrial powers. It was also during this time that Stalin enacted the Great
Terror which killed millions. Millions more were sent to concentration camps. The fear of
Stalin was carried out by his secret police called Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti
or KGB.Then an event happened that forever change the world's view of the Soviet Union.
That event would be known as World War II. Stalin personnally led the assault on Germany
that eventually resulted in the end of the war. The choice now was what to do with the
conquered land. Stalin decided that he wanted the eastern half of Germany while the
Americans, British, and French would get the western half. It was with this that East
Germany became the Deutsch Demokratik Republik or DDR. Along with its new form of
communist government came the Berlin Wall which would be known as symbol of fear and
imprisonment of the people all the way up to its destruction in 1989. The other countries
liberated by Soviet armies also became influenced and controlled by the communist
domination.Needless to say, the west was not happy. It was because of this displeasure
that the Soviet Union and the United States would be involved in the Cold War for nearly
the next 50 years. Although the U.S.S.R. was now the largest country in the world, the
United States was evenly matched with it. The U.S.A.'s citizens were learning to hate the
Russians because of Senator McCarthy who wished to persecute all communists in the U.S.
Through this continuing rivalry began a nucular arms race that would affect the world's
people even today. Along with this started the space race which has rapidly propelled
mankind into the future.Would this all last? The answer is no. Some might say that its
increasing struggle with the United States and its need for nuclear weapons caused its
demise. While others might say it was because of cruel leaders who killed their own
citizens. What ever it was, the fact remains that the Soviet Union began to dissolve in
September of 1991. President Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the U.S.S.R. ant the time,
eased the transition. So it was on December 25, 1991 that the Soviet Union was officialy
dismantled and the Russian Federation came into exsistence. Its communist party remains
today as a still vivrant source of political debate.
geoffcleveland@hotmail.com 
A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private
ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common
benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to
his capacity, and receive according to his wants.
Any ideology based on the communal ownership of all property and a classless social
structure, with economic production and distribution to be directed and regulated by
means of an authoritative economic plan that supposedly embodies the interests of the
community as a whole. In most versions of the communist utopia, everyone would be
expected to co-operate enthusiastically in the process of production, but the individual
citizen's equal rights of access to consumer goods would be completely unaffected by
his/her own individual contribution to production It was expected that such a radical
reordering of the economic sphere of life would also more or less rapidly lead to the
elimination of all other major social problems such as class conflict, political
oppression, racial discrimination, the inequality of the sexes, religious bigotry, and
cultural backwardness -- as well as put an end to such more psychological forms of
suffering as alienation, anomie, and feelings of powerlessness. 
The specifically Marxist-Leninist variant of socialism which emphasizes that a truly
communist society can be achieved only through the violent overthrow of capitalism and
the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat that is to prepare the way for the
future idealized society of communism under the authoritarian guidance of a hierarchical
and disciplined Communist Party. 
1. A world-wide revolutionary political movement inspired by the October Revolution (Red
Oktober) in Russia in 1917 and advocating the establishment everywhere of political,
economic, and social institutions and policies modeled on those of the Soviet Union (or,
in some later versions, China or Albania) as a means for eventually attaining a communist
society. 
a system of social organization in which property, particularly real property and the
means of production, is held in common. With an uppercase C, the term refers to the
movement that has sought to overthrow CAPITALISM through revolution. Forms of communism
existed among various tribes of Native Americans, and it was espoused by early Christian
sects. During the Middle Ages the MANORIAL SYSTEM provided communal use of the village
commons and cultivation of certain fields, rights the peasants fought to retain in
England (14th cent.) and Germany (16th cent.). By the early 19th cent. the rise of
capitalism, reinforced by the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, had created a new industrial class
living and working under appalling conditions. Utopian socialists such as Robert OWEN and
Charles FOURIER, anarchists such as P.J. PROUDHON, and revolutionaries such as Auguste
Blanqui all favored some kind of communal solution to this poverty. In Germany Karl MARX
and Friedrich ENGELS published the Communist Manifesto (1848), the primary exposition of
the doctrine that came to be known as MARXISM. It postulated the inevitability of
communism arising from class war, the overthrow of capitalism, and the creation of a
classless society. Marxism greatly influenced 19th-cent. SOCIALISM. The modern Communist
political movement began when the Russian Social Democratic Labor party split (1903) into
two factions (see BOLSHEVISM AND MENSHEVISM). The Bolsheviks, led by V.I. LENIN, called
for armed revolution. After their triumph in the 1917 RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, the Bolsheviks
formed the Communist party (1918), established a party dictatorship, and founded the
COMINTERN (1919), which claimed leadership of the world socialist movement. In the 1930s,
Joseph STALIN's policy of socialism in one country prevailed in the USSR, but after WORLD
WAR II Stalin created satellite Communist states in Eastern Europe. The Chinese
Communists (see CHINA), who triumphed in 1949, aided movements in Southeast Asia. U.S.
opposition to these and other actions by Soviet, Chinese, and other Commmunists led to
the COLD WAR, KOREAN WAR, VIETNAM WAR, and proxy wars elsewhere, particularly in Latin
America and Africa. Economic difficulties, particularly shortages of food and other
consumer goods, and the resurgence of NATIONALISM led to demands for reform and internal
problems in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Poland (1956, 1981), and other
Communist countries, and to the often violent suppression of protest. In the 1960s
Sino-Soviet relations deteriorated, and the Communist parties of Western and THIRD WORLD
countries began to assert their independence of those two powers. Popular uprisings,
economic collapse, and free elections ousted Communist governments in much of Eastern
Europe in 1989 and 1990, and the failed hard-line coup against Soviet Pres. GORBACHEV led
to the suspension of the Communist party in the USSR and the country's subsequent
disintegration in 1991. By the early 1990s traditional Communist party dictatorships held
power only in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. China, Laos, Vietnam, and, to
a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate
growth. Communist parties, or their descendent parties, remain politically important in
many Eastern European nations, in Russia and other nations of the former USSR, and
elsewhere.
[See also: capitalism, socialism, ideology, egalitarianism] 
Comparative advantage 
Both communism and liberalism maintain with complete certainty that the destruction of
the existing society will give birth to a new form of human existence at the least
approaching utopia. They are what Daniel Chirot dubbed 'tyrannies of certitude'.
A particular group of people has been responsible for blocking the happy development for
centuries. In the case of communism it was capitalists, in the case of liberalism it is
'racists' - nearly all of whom are of course white. No! One must be harsh to build the
new society and not make excuses. All white people are 'racists' and must pay the
inevitable penalty. Few people know that the word 'racism' was invented by Leon Trotsky,
one of the principal architects of the communist nightmare. 
The rightness of the cause dictates that a political architecture of lies rather than
reasoned argument is permissible if necessary to bring about the result. Since no one
will willingly give up their human identity, and that is what we are being asked to do,
lies will, in fact, be indispensable. The communists aimed at eradicating 'bourgeois
consciousness'. The liberals are systematically eradicating our history and identity from
schools to ensure pliancy before the onslaught of anti-white bias in everything from
newspapers to employment law. In this they are unlikely to succeed. The Russian and
Yugoslav experience under communism has shown the persistency of racial and cultural
identity. 
Doubters concerning the wisdom of the new arrangements are to be hunted down and
destroyed - under communism they were dubbed capitalist spies and saboteurs, under
liberalism it is 'racists' - a sound catch-all term of abuse for any white person
opposing their own marginalisation. 
The 'racists' are well-organised and to blame for nearly everything which goes wrong
according to authority, just like the 'counter-revolutionaries, western spies and
saboteurs' in the heyday of communism. Under communism the newspapers would say
'capitalist spy ring raided'. Under liberalism we read 'police target racist groups'. In
both cases good citizens are to congratulate themselves on the skill and wisdom of the
authorities in protecting them from disruptions to the relentless march towards paradise
on earth so evident on Soviet collective farms and now in Britain's inner-cities. 
If communism was not delivering the goods then even more stringent action was needed to
eradicate the source of the trouble. Since it had been scientifically proven that
communism would deliver, what possible other cause could there be for failure except
disruption by malcontents? If people do not actually enjoy mass immigration and the
so-called 'multiracial society', it must surely be the work of similar malcontents.
Liberal theory is flawless. Like communism, it presents itself as scientifically-based -
an abundancy of pseudo-sociological tosh underpins its thinking - and dictates a
historically-inevitable outcome in which we all celebrate the fact that we have as little
in common with the people we live with as possible. Supposed 'historical inevitability'
as a weapon of political language has been filched from communism and creeps into every
liberal initiative. It is used, for example, to forward the European federal superstate
project. 
Both liberals and communists maintain that their systems can never be wrong. It is rather
like the jesuitical argument that no innocent person has ever been hanged. Since all
those hanged have been convicted by a court, they are by legal definition guilty! It is
this feature - the refusal to admit to possible error in the theory - which makes
liberalism as totalitarian in nature as communism and why it must be unmasked as the
monster it really is. The rulers, too, can never be wrong since they are applying a
system which can never err. They are relieved of all responsibility. Notice how no one in
government within Britain today takes responsibility for anything! Blair has brought the
tactic to a fine art. 
How is it that white people could been so hoodwinked as many are in our country? A system
which targets us for destruction is met with passivity and acquiescence. We can learn a
lot from the experience of communism. 
Most people assume that government is broadly competent. The latest theory must have some
sense in it, people say, or it would not be introduced. New theories which claim to be
idealistic enjoy an aura and are given a chance. That is what happened under communism.
Sufficient people enthusiastically supported the experiment to carry along the rest -
with plentiful dollops of intimidation against anyone who became too vocal in opposition.
Most people, once they have passively accepted an ideas system, dislike it being
challenged, since it implies criticism of their judgement. Those who draw attention to
flaws provoke psychological discomfort. Anger and perplexity is a common response. None
of us likes to seem made to appear foolish, and especially when merely to hear the
message is thought to put us at risk. Later on no one wishes to admit that they were ever
a believer. 
Under communism, only the tiniest fraction of people expressed open dissent against the
system. The system tried to draw in as many people as possible as accomplices. One of the
most effective means was the threat that a failure to actively denounce opponents of the
ideology would mean classification as a supporter. 
We see this mechanism particularly clearly in a Britain where a political, police,
teaching or media career means a requirement to offer regular ritual tributes to the
contribution made by immigrants, and little reference to white people beyond regret at
occasional backsliding from the requirement that they voluntarily marginalise themselves
within the society. The most obnoxious exponents are the army of white media apparatchiks
who draw a regular thirty pieces of silver in reward for stabbing their fellow white
people in the backs. The most pathetic are senior police officers with their vomit-making
'confessions' of 'institutional racism' before tribunals like that of Sir William
Macpherson. They resemble the unfortunates who were tortured by the Inquisition to obtain
admissions about the poisoning of wells with powdered toads. 
Most of the populations of the formerly communist countries now congratulate themselves
on having been opponents of communism. In reality, most would have crossed the road to
avoid a dissident if they had met one at the time. As a communist secret policeman told
one dissenter: You are an intelligent man. Why oppose the system when it only brings you
trouble to do so. Yet the system eventually collapsed. A small number of open doubters is
no measure of the worth of a political system, or of its prospects for permanence. 
Lenin's definition of a revolutionary situation was that the rulers could no longer rule
in the same way, and the ruled no longer accepted the old ways. What finished communism
was precisely what brought it about, but it took a long time before the bankruptcy of the
system led to such a parting of the ways between rulers and ruled. 
Communism could not provide even the material things. Liberalism does better in material
terms but cannot provide meaning to life and human identity. Sooner or later, the
increasingly open repression of white people will lead to its fall. Liberal actions are
constantly justified by the claim to be preventing inequality, but end up as a series of
attacks on white people. Sooner or later, white people will use up the last of their
goodwill and the national genie will leave the bottle. As under communism, even the
leaders will no longer be able to believe their own lies. 
One wonders what goes through the minds of leading members of the Labour Party, including
Blair himself, who preach the virtues of the multiracial multicultural comprehensive
school, while making sure that their own children do not attend them. The germ of doubt
must eventually penetrate even their professionally duplicitous minds. Duplicity about
schools is a liberal counterpart of the racket which operated under communism where
special shops provided Communist Party members with luxuries unavailable to the mass of
the population. 
The methods by which the main political parties maintain power in Britain - largely
psychological warfare involving ludicrous claims that white people are a 'guilty race',
but also some some violence, and occasional show trials like that of Nick Griffin - will
eventually no longer work. Any relaxation of control to placate the populace in those
circumstances would lead to demands for more freedom and would soon be reversed, as
happened under communism at the end of the Prague Spring of 1968. 'Socialism with a human
face' would soon be no socialism at all. Liberalism with racial and cultural identity
would be a contradiction. No such experiments are being tried at present in Britain. The
psywar against white people continues unrelentingly 24 hours a day. Like communism,
liberalism has nothing new to try in a situation of public discontent but only more of
the same, which will provoke further resentment. That is its fatal internal
contradiction. Reinforcement of unsatisfactory policies is the answer when the regime
finds itself in difficulty. 
Political correctness following the Steven Lawrence enquiry has led to a massive increase
in violent street crime in London as the police retreat from enforcing the law. The
Government's answer is to increase the levels of political correctness within the police
just as the communists tried to deal with unrest by reinforcing repression. The case of
crime is a particularly telling example. The difficulty for liberal ideologues is that
political correctness was supposed to remove resentments which were the principal cause
of crime - supposedly an expression of revolt against oppression, sexism, racism and so
on. What if the theory fails and measures to remove its supposed causes make it worse?
The theory cannot be seen to be wrong, so the very measures which have failed must be
reinforced on the basis that they have not been introduced vigorously enough! This causes
more problems and resentments. Minority racial groups retreat from the multiracial
project to protect themselves. The rulers are forced by their own logic to dig their own
metaphorical graves. 
People will eventually stop listening, no longer believe in the regime's ability to deal
with their problems, its moral legitimacy or its basic assumptions, and Lenin's
precondition for change will appear. The speed with which such watersheds can sometimes
erupt was the lesson of 1989. We should not assume that change will necessarily occur in
such a dramatic form in liberal Britain. What is more likely, given the temperament of
the British people, is a gradual erosion of credibility attached to the regime. As with
communism, a quiet subversion will undermine it, even if open revolt is impossible. 
Chipping away quietly, we will, sooner or later, bring down the evil which intends a slow
genocide of our people. The madmen who have taken over our country will be seen as they
really are.