“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”
A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
December 16th, 2008
1) An Anthropology of Anthropologists: Anthropologists enjoy sitting at dinner parties and condemning other cultures and unique people’s, saying that their best traditions are myth and that they are a ‘kin-group’ or ‘imagined community’ and not a people. But one should analyze anthropology the way it so arrogantly analyzes humanity. Is anthropology not a ‘clan’ with its own ‘cultic site’ and its own ‘altar’ that it bows down to, its own ‘creation myth’. Anthropologists deserved to be poked and prodded and their cherished myths subjected to the same rigorous ‘science’ as they direct at others.
2) Thailand’s Democracy problem: and the problem for all democracies: The takeover of the airports in Thailand and the banning of the ruling party to placate the street, alongside the riots in Greece, show an incredible chink in the armor of democracy. It cannot defend itself against violent street riots by small minorities, who are able to hijack governments and use the media to appear that they are the majority. The people who vote, the majority, those who pay their taxes demand that the police do something, and demand their property be protected, otherwise they too should form gangs and run these lazy violent youth off the streets. But that last option is not very democratic.
3) Obscured Evil: The problem with modernity: One of the great hallmarks of modernity is not only that it obscures a cesspool beneath its own ivory towers, but that it also obscures evil in history. One of the greatest test cases is to read accounts of slavery written in the 1860s by American southerners (who believed slavery was a normal part of life) and by academics today. One finds incredible similarity. The obscuring of evil, the inability to condemn it is part of the post-modern culture. Whereas our proud ancestors fought slavery, their descendants white wash it. Obscured evil is a hallmark of a dying society, once one ignores evil it means they accept it.
An Anthropology of Anthropologists
November 16th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman
Anthropology is an infuriating subject. It is like arguing with those who accuse people of being alcoholics. When one replies “I am not a drunk” the response is “you are in denial.” I have seen it again and again in life. There is some person from some unique culture and opposite them is some arrogant bespeckled western leftist intellectual saying “research has shown that you do this in your culture and that your prayer is stolen from so and so and your historic roots are actually in this place and not the place you say.” And I’ve seen the bewildered look on the face of the human, surprised to be told by someone he thought was his fellow man that in fact this ‘anthropologist’ is above him and capable of telling his own history to him. In the old days when man had honour he might challenge the weak ‘anthropologist’ to a duel for having insulted his culture, but instead we are trained today to accept such hateful dehumanizing criticism as part of ‘science’ and ‘intellectual’ life. Anthropology places itself above humanity and thus a human does not feel capable of arguing with it because it has pretensions to be a ‘science’ based on ‘research.’ But Anthropologists are also human. So if they are human than surely we can apply anthropology to them and we can stand above them and see their way of life. Think of anthropologists like a tribe. They are not naked and half-starved children are not suckling on their breasts in the midst of some swamp, but they are a tribal people. They have a culture and a way of life. They have families. They give birth. They have a cultic center and a religion.
How does an Anthropologist band (a small group of related people, who are primarily organized through family bonds. Foraging typifies the subsistence technology. A respected and older person may be looked to for leadership, but the person has no formalized authority) or clan (a noncorporate descent group in which genealogical links to a common ancestor are assumed but are not actually known) survive? It has elders in the form of ‘scholars’ and ‘research’ which is passed down from generation to generation. Anthropology’s mythological source is actually to be found in the Muslim world where they claim descent from Abu Rayhan Biruni. It emerges from the shadows of history in the British empire of the 19th century. Later it was adopted by intellectuals of the Southern Aristocracy to support the “natural state of the Negro in slavery.” Fredrick Douglas replied in 1854 that “The Claims of the Negro Ethnologically Considered," Douglass argued that "by making the enslaved a character fit only for slavery, [slaveowners] excuse themselves for refusing to make the slave a freeman.... For let it be once granted that the human race are of multitudinous origin, naturally different in their moral, physical, and intellectual capacities... a chance is left for slavery, as a necessary institution.... There is no doubt that Messrs. Nott, Glidden [authors of Types of Mankind], Morton, Smith and Agassiz were duly consulted by our slavery propagating statesmen." Later Anthropology was a keystone of Nazism and part of their cultic belief system that theorized that Jews and slavs were sub-human. The Nazi obsession with anthropology was such that they even searched for their ancestors in Tibet and collected Jewish relics of destroyed communities in order to preserve the history of the people they were so proud at having destroyed. So Anthropology has a beautiful pedigree: Islamism, Slavery and Nazism.
Anthropology was involved with a coevolution (the joint evolution of two or more systems that interact with each other) with the enlightenment. It is predicated on the colonization (forced change in which one culture, society, or nation dominates another) of native peoples in the sense that it believes its ideas about culture are correct and it thus imposes them on others. IAnthropologists like to study the coperiphery (the structural relation between centralized core, often an urban area, and communities on the periphery, usually tribal or rural, resource-based communities) but usually reside in urban bourgouise communities. Its culture (the learned patterns of behavior and thought that help a group adapt to it's surroundings) is one of wealth and arrogance. Its curer (a specialist who heals with herbal preparations and magic learned through apprenticeships) is called a doctor. Anthropologists engage in a cyclical migration (the annual pattern followed in the production of food) to posh ethnic restaurants at noon time where they sit with other members of their economic group and talk about other peoples.
What marks the anthropologist is his view of the world. He has a unique view whereby he categorizes other people according to his own views of them and disregards their own views of themselves. He creates mythological histories of peoples and call its ‘science’. He creates names for things that already have names, such as turning ‘tribe’ into ‘kin group’ and then he creates complicated definitions of those names that have no basis in reality. The anthropologist has an arrogant speech pattern when speaking about others and he enjoys observing other ‘cultures’ but he believes he is above that culture and thus has a right to observe it. An Anthropologist has no heritage or history of his own but in his belief system he exists above humanity, judging and classifying it as he sees fit. There may be some ancient decent tribe of people living on their own and the anthropologist believes that he has the right to go observe them, interview them and then decide to call their religion a ‘cult’ and describe their lifestyle in some complicated ‘scientific’ manner, turning their unique rituals into something base and turning their language and culture and speech and habit and traditions into simply classified things devoid of meaning or color. All this in the name of the anthropologists ‘science’.
Anthropology and its arrogance stands at the height of the evil side of western civilization. Western civilization claims to free man of many things, specifically savage superstitions. It claims reason and ‘enlightenment’ can free man. But it also creates new disciplines, such as anthropology, that take man and re-enslave him. Thus some poor decent person living in some decent and honourable lifestyle in some place such as India or Africa stops being a human in the eyes of the ‘scientific’ western civilization and instead becomes a thing to be poked and prodded. This poor person’s marriage becomes some ‘kin ceremony’ and his love for his brothers become part of some elaborate ‘kin-group’ that is demeaned and made fun of. His religion, his love for his land, his love for many things, are degraded. His heritage is said to be a ‘myth’. His love for his people and his language are all re-classified so that those tribes he considers his enemies are said to be his source and languages that he can speak are classified as separate while those he cannot understand are described as being the same as his.
Science is a satanic force in the hand of Anthropology for it denies man his soul, his history, his religion, his land, his source, his roots. Everything is cast aside by the idol smashing anthropologist. The anthropologist, a child of the west, has no history or identity, he has cannibalized his own, so he believes that to take revenge on the world for having vomited him out he must take away the traditions of others and tell them that their most cherished ways of life are nothing but superstition and hocus-pocus.
We must always question what ‘science’ tells us. Science tells us it has some logic to it. It tells us that it is superior to belief because it has some ‘method’. But if it has a method how can it come up with myths that are as complicated and far-fetched as any myth found in the Bible. ‘Research’ tells us the Jews are variously believing in a religion created in Mesopotamia or connected to a god in Egypt worshipped long ago by a cult. ‘Research’ condemns the Ethiopian Jews as the product of Christian missionaries and damns their ethnicity as something from Yemen, then twists history once more to create some myth about them being connected to Coptic Christians. ‘Research’ turns Santa Klaus into a pagan god or new years into a pagan holiday. It turns Greeks into slavs and claims Hindi is a ‘made up language’ and that the Japanese are based on a ‘modern myth’. ‘Research’ tells us the Bedouin ‘tribe’ is not a real entity but a ‘kin network’ that is an ‘imagined community’. ‘Research’ goes so far, thus, to even tell people “our research has shown that you do not exist.”
But what if we were to shatter this lie and ask if anthropology exists. What is the proof that it exists? Its origins are as convoluted and obscure as any Bedouin tribe. Anthropologists want to call Bedouin tribes ‘kin-groups’. But what is a research method if not a religious tradition of a secular society? What is science but a name for a new belief system created by man, one as convoluted and full of ridiculous myths as any religion. What is a college degree if not another right of passage akin to some Sun Dance of the Sioux? What is an anthropologist if not a modern day Shaman, weaving tales of history and myth into narratives? We know the source of anthropology. We know how it was harnessed to imperialism and to justify slavery and then Nazism. Now it is harnessed to secularism and used to declare man dead and his traditions dead.
But will anthropology prevail in the contest over man’s soul? It tries very hard. It tries to seduce us with claims to have ‘researched’ something and it drops names, saying things like “Dr. so and so has shown in his research that ….” But is that more powerful than some native Siberian Shaman sacrificing a goat and smearing its blood on the wall to determine the future? There is a story in the Bible in 1 Kings 18 of the time when Jezebel was hunting down the prophets of Israel to exterminate them. Elijah emerged from his cave to confront the prophets of the Baal. He was confronted 450 of them and asked that they sacrifice a bull and he would also and they would see whose god would respond. The prophets of the Baal cried out from morning until noon and danced by their altar. Elijah asked “cry out in a loud voice, for he is a god! Perhaps he is conversing or pursuing his enemies or relieving himself, or asleep.” So the prophets of the Baal whipped themselves and cut themselves with swords and stabbed eachother with spears “according to their custom.” We know how the story ends. Elijah, after preparing carefully is answered by a fire from the heavens which consumes his offering. How did Elijah deal with the prophets of the Baal? “he took them down to the Kishon Brook and slaughtered them there.” This was surely a different time than today. But the war between humanity and anthropology is no less important. For humanity to exist anthropology cannot. Anthropology demeans society and denies heritage, it kills the spirit, shackles the mind and numbs the soul. It whips and stabs and lacerates humanity in order scourge it because anthropologists are themselves a people without a past, each one a blank slate seeking to make others that way.
Tribal peoples should rise up against anthropology and throw off its chains. They do not deserve to be studied, anymore than anthropologists would invite some savage tribesmen from the Kalahari into his home to study him, anymore than we would welcome Siberian Shamans to come to our university and study us. When someone cites anthropological ‘research’ as evidence of something they must be asked immediately, ‘what is your kin group’, where is your ‘band’, what is your ‘cultic cite’? Is it not the toilet you squat on so forcefully in the morning? Is that not your altar? How do we know it is not. Perhaps you bow down before it and wash your face in the toilet bowl and splash yourself in your own filth in the morning? What is this thing called “research.” Is it your ‘myth’, your ‘ancestor-tale’? Tell us more, anthropologist, tell us how you have sex with your wife at night and about your kin group, tell us about your rituals? Those who demean culture and murder heritage must themselves be examined, poked and prodded, put in cages and have their speech recorded, as was done to the last Native-American, Ishi. Their words should be deconstructed so we may understand their belief system and we should look on their ideas as the monkeys did the ideas of the man in Planet of the Apes.
Anthropology will die out along with the rest of the western system of education. It will be forgotten and its myths and fables buried under the sands of time. It will vanish. If our culture cannot defeat it than at least Islam will defeat it. There is no anthropology among Muslims. There is none among Religious Jews. There is none among the Sikhs. There is non among the BJP. There is none among all the religious people in the world who love their heritage. Heritage cannot go hand in hand with a science that denies humanity’s basic rights to its own history. Mussolini declared a ‘battle against Economics,’ a nonsensical battle that cannot be won because economics is a fact. But Anthropology is a myth. We must wage a battle against anthropology, for it is a system of thought which hates us and our way of life.
Never allow a person to speak of anthropology in front of you for its source is Nazism and we would not let someone readily tell us about some Nazi research that has shown we are ‘sub-human’. Nor should we allow some person to interpret our culture to us. We, and I mean all the unique peoples in the world, are our culture and no one can tell us its history or its traditions, for culture and heritage and history are the most sacred elements of humanity. No leftist westerner with his science can strip humanity of them. But we can strip the west of its hateful sciences, those with origins in slavery and Nazism, those used to justify genocide and those that demean people, degrade them and in a racist and arrogant manner pretend that one man can judge the accuracy of another man’s history and lineage and tradition.
Thailand’s Democracy problem: and the problem for all democracies
December 10th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman
Images from Thailand recently have shown un-ending protests culminating in them seizing airports and shutting down the country. But for Thais this has been only a slight break from the normal course of events that have seen protesters shutting down the capital at their whim for years.
Thailand’s current ‘crises’ stretches back to at least 2001 when Thaksin Shinawatra was elected Prime Minister of the country. He had come from a middle class background with Chinese (rather than Thai) ancestry on his father’s side. He attended school at a military prep academy and entered the police forces as a young man before becoming one of the countries most successful and wealthiest businessman. Following in the mold of other successful rich men turned politicians, such as Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi or Israel’s Nir Barkat, he formed his own political party, Thai Rak Thai, and formed his fist government in 2001.
He soon made it clear that he would not behave like former politicians in this Southeast Asian country. He tackled the drug problem in a harsh and successful way. He fought a true War on Drugs, resulting in the killing by police of, some have claimed, 2,275 people, mostly drug sellers and makers and thugs involved in the drug trade. He wiped out entire sectors of drug use, including the use and sale of Meth. Success brought the usual suspects of the international human rights mafia and its ill tanned men from Europe to ‘investigate’. Amnesty International and its legion of shrill female complainers along with Human Rights Watch condemned Shinowatra for cracking down on drugs. Human Rights Watch called him a “human rights abuser of the worst kind.”
Thaksin was known to be undiplomatic with some of his neighbours and international organizations. He dared to thumb his nose at the UN and ASEAN, at one prestigious conference he was accused of not adhering to protocol and showing the proper respect to the Malaysian head of state. Thaksin distaste for the Malaysian regime stemmed from two problems. First his knowledge of Malaysia ‘Malays first’ policy where the Chinese minority in Malaysia is denied education and government jobs so that the majority Malay population can have them and because of the long running anti-Buddhist killings carried out by Malay Muslim terrorists in Southern Thailand. Due to the last ‘insurgency’ that began around 2001, probably inspired by the ‘success’ of Bin Laden, some 3,000 people were killed in Southern Thailand by Muslim terrorists.
But Thaksin’s trouble came when he somehow alienated Bangkok’s elites and middle class. His party had always received most of its votes from the rural poor, especially in northern Thailand. He had enacted various schemes to bring them out of poverty and provide health care to them. Many of them were angered due to years of neglect and having to watch their sons and daughters get swallowed up by the faceless urban environments that turned the sons into day labourers and the women into sex slaves for the European tourists and elites. Thaksin was their saviour. Beginning in 2005 under the pretext of opposing corruption a motley group of protestors that included students, militant Buddhist societies, royalits, right wing vigilantes and others popped up to oppose the government. This ‘People’s Alliance of Democracy’ provided non-stop protests that resulted in a coup in 2006 led by a Muslim general and supported by the King. The Generals governed until February of 2008 when new elections brought the People’s Power Party into power. Thaksin had been in exile and his party had been declared illegal but it had re-formed itself under this new name and was once again elected. The response of the urban youth and their allies was to begin protesting again with the claim that the king must support a new coup or all the streets and services in the capital would be blocked. The way of the protestors is not peaceful but violent and the army is unwilling to intervene, apparently because it too dislikes the democratically elected government.
Here we see in Thailand a case where democracy has failed. The people have been asked again and again to elect the party they choose since 2001 and since 2005 the urban elites, students and monks and leftists and other radicals, apparently because they are wealthy and do not have to work, have simply made it impossible for normal life to continue in the capital. The army has refused to intervene and the police are incapable of controlling the crowds or suppressing the protests.
This is where democracy fails. One does not need a minority of 45% to make governing by the 55% impossible. One only needs the 10-15% who reside in the largest city, the elites who know how to use violence, intimidation and street protests, and human rights organizations, in order to make life impossible. The police in all countries prove entirely inadequate in controlling even small crowds of rioters. One need only recall the ‘intifada’ in Paris in 2005, the riots in Greece in December 2008 or any other riot. The police are unable to defeat rioters and police tactics do not train them to defeat them. Police tactics are never such that the police succeed in protecting businesses or keeping the streets open and the people safe. The police only succeed in skirmishing with the rioters. And this is the problem with democracy. When a small group is dedicated to not respecting democracy that group can make elections seem illegitimate through mass protests. In many places this has led to new elections simply because some 10% have been able to hijack entire countries, and usually it is the urban leftist educated 10%, not the people who actually vote.
To surrender to the politics of the street is the weakness of democracy. It means the majority is rarely respected if the minority knows how to use the protest, the human rights movement and other forms of intimidation. This is why, at some level, there must be a mechanism to remove protestors once and for all, jail them en masse, beat them, terrorize them, do whatever it takes to stop them from corrupting democracy and hijacking it to their narrow wishes. One method of doing this is an American Style election which happens at a set time every 2 or 4 years. This way there can be decision to ‘call new elections’ because that would be unconstitutional. The protestor may whine and complain but he will not get his new elections. The government remains in place. Secondly the protester cannot be allowed to invade and shut down airports and main thoroughfares. These are the public’s property and must be defended from protestors the way one defends property: arrest and if necessary shoot.
The idea of a protest is something that appeals to those wishing to subvert democracy. It is part of the ‘pressure’ group mentality where some tiny minority can have its way with government and because of the use of the media and the collaboration of ‘human rights’ groups it is given legitimacy because it is seen to represent the majority by virtue of the fact that we are exposed to it so much on television and in the press.
The actions by lunatic protestors in Greece and Thailand remind democracies that they must train the police better to deal with the people when the people break the law. The fact that the police are incapable of protecting private business is a problem because it means that the protestors is allowed to destroy private property. When the police do not defend private property than the people must and that means the people must be willing to fight the protestor in the same way the protestor fights. The people must be willing to go to the wealthy gated community or the hippie commune from whence the protestor springs, to his anarchist apartment, and burn that apartment, burn his car, destroy his motorcycle, hit him in his property. Spray paint his house, tear down his extremist signs. The protestor always is able to run loose in the city, whatever day it is he has a new cause that he exploits and uses violence against the property of others. The protestor is a thug and a terrorist, a natural bully who works in crowds and assaults and intimidates the majority. But the majority should not be silent. There is no excuse for having ‘youths’ running the streets burning cars and businesses and invading airports. Beat them mercilessly. As Stalin said “Beat, beat and beat again.” Or as Yitzhak Rabin said “Break their bones.” Beating is not enough, the police are capable and do it enough and it is not effective at stopping the abuse of the streets by the ‘youths’. This is why they need to be completely cleared from the streets as one fights a war in an urban environment: street by street, block by block. They need to be curfewed and when that doesn’t work they need to be arrested en masse and transported a distance of a hundred miles to some rural location and unloaded in a football field and kept there until they can be processed and given the harshest prison terms possible on such charges as ‘disturbing the peace’ and ‘loitering’ and ‘blocking public street’, ‘vandalism’, ‘protesting without a permit’ and such things. ‘Youths’ feel a mandate to do as they please because they do not have jobs and because there is no punishment, they believe that there is ‘safety in numbers’ because ‘who would arrest all of us.’ The police need to think outside the box on this and arrest them all. Thousands, tens of thousands. Whatever it takes to put a stop to lawlessness and the destruction of property.
Protesting is a legal part of democracy. But taking over streets and airports, smashing cars and burning businesses is not. Spraypainting people’s doors is not. Paralyzing a city is not. Those last things are part of terrorism and the destruction of democracy, they are the prelude to coups and civil wars. Democracy must defend itself with a strong hand, otherwise it dies the lonely death that we have seen in Thailand.
Obscured Evil: The problem with modernity
Seth J. Frantzman
December 8th, 2008
History will judge us harshly. It will not judge us merely on our failure but it will judge on our ability to obscure evil, our use of intellectualism and the predilection among the best and the brightest to obscure evil and fabricate history. Our inability to judge which is passed of as an interest in not judging and thus not being 'racist' in fact hides a deeper and more disturbing reality, the tragedy of modernity and its inability to process and judge and value things, particularly its inability to condemn evil, whether it is evil in our midst or evil in the past. It is a failure for which modernity will pay the ultimate price and be smashed on the rocks of history.
Societies that sanctioned evil were still able to judge, in our view they just judged wrong. Nazism did not shy from judgment and neither does modern day Islamism. They both understood evil, even though they themselves are it. But modern society does not even rise to the simple level of the Nazi or the Islamist for he cannot even judge. Whereas the Nazi and the Islamist judge incorrectly, modern intellectuals simply do not judge, which means they are in fact worse.
Take two simple examples. The medias reaction to the recent Mumbai attacks, the media's callous treatment of the victims, the media's unwillingness to name who carried out the attacks and the media' prevarication in noting who the attacks were against. Each time the media lied the media murdered he victims again.
The second example is modern societies treatment of slavery, particularly slavery as was found in the Middle East not so long ago. Society denies the slave his right to a heritage, his name, his right to have a mother and a father, his justice, and sees the slave as a 'commercial unit' much as he was seen by his masters and abductors. This enslaves the slave twice, murdering his history twice, for it was first done by the actual people who enslaved him or her against their will, but it is done again by the Western historian in his ivory tower.
History will judge us harshly and rightly so because it will see that we had access to so much information and yet we knowingly obscured that information in order to lie to ourselves about things that were blatantly obvious. A society that does not do justice to the victims of slavery and terrorism, it is as if the society itself is responsible for terrorism and slavery. It is an accomplice. Our modern secular society is an accomplice in more ways than one. In some cases our democratic secular 'progressive' way of life allows for slavery to take place under our very noses in the form of trafficking in women, a crime whose perpetrators receive little punishment primarily due to the female feminist judges who re-label such things 'sex work' and turn the slave sellers into 'business owners'. I don't blame Islam for hating our way of life, it is a way of life that is objectionable and deserves exactly what it gets, it is not worth saving or defending. Any society that can turn terrorists in 'militants' and whose elite media dares to ask whether the targets of the terror were "strategic or by mistake" deserves what it gets.
William Hopworth Dixon, a man used to understanding of the role of slavery in the American South, in the 1860s described a scene in Jaffa: "Said is a Nubian, a Negro, and a slave, and like the mule and the horses, is the property of an Arab gentleman."
Our modern secular 'progressive' society, 148 years later, describes slavery thus:
"In the nineteenth century, there was growing demand for slaves in the Ottoman
Empire, particularly during the middle third of the century. Commercial prosperity
stimulated demand for Africans – from the Sudan, Senegal, Ethiopia and parts of
eastern and south-eastern Africa – and from the Caucasus and central Asia. They were
brought to slave markets in cities, of note Cairo, Istanbul and Bursa, and sold to work
as urban domestics, in municipal services, in industry, and in other dangerous and
disdained occupations. Some were kept in harems as slave-girls or concubines. As
well, slaves were used to work on farms and as sharecroppers. Sarah La Preta was brought as a young girl to Jerusalem around 1880. She was a slave who endured the difficulties of travel from her native Ethiopia to be sold in Jerusalem’s market…. As a slave, there are no official records of her birth." Lets tell the truth. She didn't "endure", she was "forced to endure." She doesn't lack "official records" of her birth, her records exist in Ethiopia the place she should have grown up and lived a free life. The place she should have enjoyed playing as a child instead of being raped by Muslim Arabs and put in chains and forced to march through the desert. Forced to be stolen and abducted from her parents by a pedophile religion of hate and transported illegally across the sea to be sold as an object, her humanity denied again and again. Her family surely recalled her birth. She had a name given to her by them. No one gave these animals, these beasts, the right to sell a human being. Slaves were not "used to work", they were "forced to work." But the West obscures and prevaricates. The West lies and lies and lies again in order not to judge, in order to enslave our minds to this mindless life of non-judgment and ridiculous sensitivity to 'racism'. But who is the greater racist, the liberal-secular western person who obscures the life of an African slave and turns her into chattel, or the person who tells the truth about the Muslim role in the African slave trade. Who is the greater racist, the liberal-secular media who refuses to admit that it was Jews, Hindus and westerners who were targeted and murdered in Mumbai, or the person who tells the truth about terror and names who the terrorists are; Muslim terrorists?
We cannot abide such a world. Liberalism and secularism promised us many things and in each thing it was a lie. Each 'freedom' became a slavery, each secular promise to free us from the chains of religion brought new religions with new chains to whip and murder us, each time we were told we would be freed by some new leftist ideology such as Communism we found that leftist intellectuals came and set taskmasters upon us in the name of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. But there was no proletariat, there was just the Soviet-Bolshevik elite, born of wealth who continued their bourgouise leftist lifestyle while man was re-enslaved. Each time we were told 'now we will do justice to occupied voices and colonized peoples' we found that the truth was obscured, in the name of anti-colonialism Robert Mugabes arose and new colonialism had to be imposed to bring out men such as Charles Taylor, good people like Rose Kabuye were arrested under arrest warrants issued by the International Court, a court with no jurisdiction that Rwanda never allowed to have power over her citizens. Each time we found that 'never again' meant 'do it again'. Each time we found that slavery was not abolished but only changing in form as we watched millions of women from the Former Soviet Union sold as chattel across the world, raped for the enjoyment of men and murdered.
We ask. When will it be enough? When will we stop submitting to this charade. When will slavery start being slavery again? When will terrorism become terrorism? When will peace stop meaning war? When will justice stop meaning genocide? When will human rights stop meaning hatred for humans? When. Will we have to extricate ourselves from the diseased western civilization and allow it to die so that we may live again free from its shackles?