by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Governor: Mao tse tung

WA Delegate: None.

Founder: Mao tse tung

Last WA Update:

Maps Board Activity History Admin Rank

World Factbook Entry

☭Welcome to the Red Guards☭

★Home to Mao tse tung thought★

Founded on the 16th of Febuary, 2017.

Our Constitution




News: Welcome all new members! We are welcome to serve as your new home as long as you obey the rules and read the constitution. All those that violate our rules shall be removed from the region.

"Sailing the seas depends on the helmsman, waging revolution depends on Mao Zedong Thought!"

Come join us for Revolutionary Action, spreading the ideas of Maoism and Revolutionary thought throughout the world, both in NationStates and the real world!

Join The Red Guard Army and let us fight in defense of Communism



LinkJoin a Maoist Group Around You!

LinkSelected Works of Mao Zedong



  1. 8

    The Manifesto of The Red Guard Communist Party

    FactbookLegislation by Mao tse tung . 249 reads.

  2. 76

    The Basis of Maoism

    FactbookPolitics by Mao tse tung . 282 reads.

Embassies: North Korea and The Internationale.

Tags: Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Fascist, Communist, Defender, Eco-Friendly, Governorless, Minuscule, Password, Regional Government, Serious, and Socialist.

The Red Guards contains 4 nations.

Today's World Census Report

The Most Stationary in The Red Guards

Long-term World Census surveillance revealed which nations have been resident in their current region for the longest time.

As a region, The Red Guards is ranked 7,766th in the world for Most Stationary.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Republic of Nikoind PinglandInoffensive Centrist Democracy Communists“Strength Through Freedom”
2.The Armed Forces of Zulankan Outpost 42Liberal Democratic Socialists Ivory Tower Reality Disconnect Zone“¡Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”
3.The People's Republic of SovrenskDemocratic Socialists Hell“Peace and Justice”
4.The Colony of TRG33Civil Rights Lovefest Nation-Hating Hippies“The MT Army will save NationStates from hate”

Regional Happenings

More...

The Red Guards Regional Message Board

This is my view

Guangdonglia wrote:So, the Hong Kong demonstration was the product of the oppression of Chinese bureaucratic capitalism and foreign capitalism, compradors and the big bourgeoisie in Hong Kong

I agree with this quote and many of the points that you have brought up. Unfortunately, the PRC has a bad taste in many western nations due to the fact that the country is run by the CPC, an anti-western, anti-capitalist ideology, and anything that goes against the PRC is always supported due to this, many of the foreign HK supporters have never been to HK or experienced the sheer amount of gentrification that has occurred within the islands, as well as the wealth gaps between foreign bank investors and ordinary HK citizens. Justice is indeed needed for HK, but not one against the Chinese people, who is the hand of stability over HK, but the parasitic capitalist nature that has invaded through the cloaks of European and American bank investors. Having lived in HK for a good while, it is clear to me who people should raise their fists against.

The peoples commune

Hello Red Guards, I hope that everyone is keeping safe during these troubling times.

In order to reflect the purpose of the Red Guards, to safe hold Maoist ideology, we will start analyzing selected works of Chairman Mao from his writings. I will be posting a piece done by the Chairman and open it to discussion, while also giving my analyzation on what Chairman Mao wrote. The discussion could be either agreeing or disagreeing with certain parts, as well as how it may apply to modern day revolution and if it is even applicable anymore given the times. This is all voluntary, but if we are to be Red Guards, then we should familiarize ourselves with Maoist writings. The first piece we will be going over is ANALYSIS OF THE CLASSES IN CHINESE SOCIETY written in March 1926. This will give us a good overview of the struggles that were being faced by the Chinese peoples before the civil war. I will post the writing in full beneath this and comrades are welcome to dissect bits and pieces as they choose.

Forward the Revolution!

Moro rongzhen and The peoples commune

ANALYSIS OF THE CLASSES IN CHINESE SOCIETY

Mao Tse Tung

March 1926

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution. The basic reason why all previous revolutionary struggles in China achieved so little was their failure to unite with real friends in order to attack real enemies. A revolutionary party is the guide of the masses, and no revolution ever succeeds when the revolutionary party leads them astray. To ensure that we will definitely achieve success in our revolution and will not lead the masses astray, we must pay attention to uniting with our real friends in order to attack our real enemies. To distinguish real friends from real enemies, we must make a general analysis of the economic status of the various classes in Chinese society and of their respective attitudes towards the revolution.

What is the condition of each of the classes in Chinese society?

The landlord class and the comprador class. In economically backward and semi-colonial China the landlord class and the comprador class are wholly appendages of the international bourgeoisie, depending upon imperialism for their survival ant growth. These classes represent the most backward and most reactionary relations of production in China and hinder the development of her productive forces. Their existence is utterly incompatible with the aims of the Chinese revolution. The big landlord and big comprador classes in particular always side with imperialism and constitute an extreme counterrevolutionary group. Their political representatives are the Étatistes and the right-wing of the Kuomintang.

The middle bourgeoisie. This class represents the capitalist relations of production in China in town and country. The middle bourgeoisie, by which is meant chiefly the national bourgeoisie, is inconsistent in its attitude towards the Chinese revolution: they feel the need for revolution and favour the revolutionary movement against imperialism and the warlords when they are smarting under the blows of foreign capital and the oppression of the warlords, but they become suspicious of the revolution when they sense that, with the militant participation of the proletariat at home and the active support of the international proletariat abroad, the revolution is threatening the hope of their class to attain the status of a big bourgeoisie. Politically, they stand for the establishment of a state under the rule of a single class, the national bourgeoisie. A self-styled true disciple of Tai Chi-tao wrote in the Chen Pao, Peking, "Raise your left fist to knock down the imperialists and your right to knock down the Communists." These words depict the dilemma and anxiety of this class. It is against interpreting the Kuomintang's Principle of the People's Livelihood according to the theory of class struggle, and it opposes the Kuomintang's alliance with Russia and the admission of Communists and left-wingers. But its attempt to establish a state under the rule of the national bourgeoisie is quite impracticable, because the present world situation is such that the two major forces, revolution and counter-revolution, are locked in final struggle. Each has hoisted a huge banner: one is the red banner of revolution held aloft by the Third International as the rallying point for all the oppressed classes of the world, the other is the white banner of counterrevolution held aloft by the League of Nations as the rallying point for all the counter-revolutionaries of the world. The intermediate classes are bound to disintegrate quickly, some sections turning left to join the revolution, others turning right to join the counter-revolution; there is no room for them to remain "independent". Therefore the idea cherished by China's middle bourgeoisie of an "independent" revolution in which it would play the primary role is a mere illusion.

The petty bourgeoisie. Included in this category are the owner-peasants, the master handicraftsmen, the lower levels of the intellectuals--students, primary and secondary school teachers, lower government functionaries, office clerks, small lawyers--and the small traders. Both because of its size and class character, this class deserves very close attention. The owner-peasants and the master handicraftsmen are both engaged in small-scale production. Although all strata of this class have the same petty-bourgeois economic status, they fall into three different sections. The first section consists of those who have some surplus money or grain, that is, those who, by manual or mental labour, earn more each year than they consume for their own support. Such people very much want to get rich and are devout worshipers of Marshal Chao; while they have no illusions about amassing great fortunes, they invariably desire to climb up into the middle bourgeoisie. Their mouths water copiously when they see the respect in which those small moneybags are held. People of this sort are timid, afraid of government officials, and also a little afraid of the revolution. Since they are quite close to the middle bourgeoisie in economic status, they have a lot of faith in its propaganda and are suspicious of the revolution. This section is a minority among the petty bourgeoisie and constitutes its right-wing. The second section consists of those who in the main are economically self-supporting. They are quite different from the people in the first section; they also want to get rich, but Marshal Chao never lets them. In recent years, moreover, suffering from the oppression and exploitation of the imperialists, the warlords, the feudal landlords and the big comprador-bourgeoisie, they have become aware that the world is no longer what it was. They feel they cannot earn enough to live on by just putting in as much work as before. To make both ends meet they have to work longer hours, get up earlier, leave off later, and be doubly careful at their work. They become rather abusive, denouncing the foreigners as "foreign devils", the warlords as "robber generals" and the local tyrants and evil gentry as "the heartless rich". As for the movement against the imperialists and the warlords, they; merely doubt whether it can succeed (on the ground that the foreigners and the warlords seem so powerful), hesitate to join it and prefer to be neutral, but they never oppose the revolution. This section is very numerous, making up about one-half of the petty bourgeoisie.

The third section consists of those whose standard of living is falling. Many in this section, who originally belonged to better-off families, are undergoing a gradual change from a position of being barely able to manage to one of living in more and more reduced circumstances. When they come to settle their accounts at the end of each year, they are shocked, exclaiming, "What? Another deficit!" As such people have seen better days and are now going downhill with every passing year, their debts mounting and their life becoming more and more miserable, they "shudder at the thought of the future". They are in great mental distress because there is such a contrast between their past and their present. Such people are quite important for the revolutionary movement; they form a mass of no small proportions and are the left-wing of the petty bourgeoisie. In normal times these three sections of the petty bourgeoisie differ in their attitude to the revolution. But in times of war, that is, when the tide of the revolution runs high and the dawn of victory is in sight, not only will the left-wing of the petty bourgeoisie join the revolution, but the middle section too may join, and even tight-wingers, swept forward by the great revolutionary tide of the proletariat and of the left-wing of the petty bourgeoisie, will have to go along with the "evolution." We can see from the experience of the May 30th Movement of 1925 and the peasant movement in various places that this conclusion is correct.

The semi-proletariat. What is here called the semi-proletariat consists of five categories: (1) the overwhelming majority of the semi-owner peasants, (2) the poor peasants, (3) the small handicraftsmen, (4) the shop assistants and (5) the pedlars. The overwhelming majority of the semi-owner peasants together with the poor peasants constitute a very large part of the rural masses. The peasant problem is essentially their problem. The semi-owner peasants, the poor peasants and the small handicraftsmen are engaged in production on a still smaller scale than the owner-peasants and the master handicraftsmen. Although both the overwhelming majority of the semi-owner peasants and the poor peasants belong to the semi-proletariat, they may be further divided into three smaller categories, upper, middle and lower, according to their economic condition. The semi-owner peasants are worse off than the owner-peasants because every year they are short of about half the food they need, and have to make up this deficit by renting land from others, selling part of their labour power, or engaging in petty trading. In late spring and early summer when the crop is still in the blade and the old stock is consumed, they borrow at exorbitant rates of interest and buy grain at high prices; their plight is naturally harder than that of the owner-peasants' who need no help from others, but they are better off than the poor' peasants. For the poor peasants own no land, and receive only half the harvest or even less for their year's toil, while the semi-owner` peasants, though receiving only half or less than half the harvest of land rented from others, can keep the entire crop from the land they own. The semi-owner peasants are therefore more revolutionary than the owner-peasants, but less revolutionary than the poor peasants. The poor peasants are tenant-peasants who are exploited by the landlords. They may again be divided into two categories according to their economic status. One category has comparatively adequate farm implements and some funds. Such peasants may retain half the product of their year's toil. To make up their deficit they cultivate side crops, catch fish or shrimps, raise poultry or pigs, or sell part of their labour power, and thus eke out a living, hoping in the midst of hardship and destitution to tide over the year. Thus their life is harder than that of the semi-owner peasants, but they are better off than the other category of poor peasants. They ate more revolutionary than the semi-owner peasants, but less revolutionary than the other category of poor peasants. As for the latter, they have neither adequate farm implements nor funds nor enough manure, their crops are poor, and, with little left after paying rent, they have even greater need to sell part of their labour power. In hard times they piteously beg help from relatives and friends, borrowing a few tou or sheng of grain to last them a few days, and their debts pile up like loads on the backs of oxen. They are the worst off among the peasants and are highly receptive to revolutionary propaganda. The small handicraftsmen are called semi-proletarians because, though they own some simple means of production and moreover are self-employed, they too are often forced to sell part of their labour power and are somewhat similar to the poor peasants in economic status. They feel the constant pinch of poverty and dread of unemployment, because of heavy family burdens and the gap between their earnings and the cost of living; in this respect too they largely resemble the poor peasants. The shop assistants are employees of shops and stores, supporting their families on meagre pay and getting an increase perhaps only once in several years while prices rise every year. If by chance you get into intimate conversation with them, they invariably pour out their endless grievances. Roughly the same in status as the poor peasants and the small handicraftsmen, they are highly receptive to revolutionary propaganda. The pedlars, whether they carry their wares around on a pole or set up stalls along the street, have tiny funds and very small earnings, and do not make enough to feed and clothe themselves. Their status is roughly the same as that of the poor peasants, and like the poor peasants they need a revolution to change the existing state of affairs.

The proletariat. The modern industrial proletariat numbers about two million. It is not large because China is economically backward. These two million industrial workers are mainly employed in five industries--railways, mining, maritime transport, textiles and shipbuilding--and a great number are enslaved in enterprises owned by foreign capitalists. Though not very numerous, the industrial proletariat represents China's new productive forces, is the most progressive class in modern China and has become the leading force in the revolutionary movement. We can see the important position of the industrial proletariat in the Chinese revolution from the strength it has displayed in the strikes of the last four years, such as the seamen's strikes, the railway strike, the strikes in the Kailan and Tsiaotso coal mines, the Shameen strike and the general strikes in Shanghai and Hong Kong after the May 30th Incident. The first reason why the industrial workers hold this position is their concentration. No other section of the people is so concentrated. The second reason is their low economic status. They have been deprived of all means of production, have nothing left but their hands, have no hope of ever becoming rich and, moreover, are subjected to the most ruthless treatment by the imperialists, the warlords and the bourgeoisie. That is why they are particularly good fighters. The coolies in the cities are also a force meriting attention. They are mostly dockers and rickshaw men, and among them, too, are sewage carters and street cleaners. Possessing nothing but their hands, they are similar in economic status to the industrial workers but are less concentrated and play a less important role in production. There is as yet little modern capitalist farming in China. By rural proletariat we mean farm labourers hired by the year, the month or the day. Having neither land, farm implements nor funds, they can live only by selling their labour power. Of all the workers they work the longest hours, for the lowest wages, under the worst conditions, and with the least security of employment. They are the most hard-pressed people in the villages, and their position in the peasant movement is as important as that of the poor peasants.

Apart from all these, there is the fairly large lumpen-proletariat, made up of peasants who have lost their land and handicraftsmen who cannot get work. They lead the most precarious existence of all. In every part of the country they have their secret societies, which were originally their mutual-aid organizations for political and economic struggle, for instance, the Triad Society in Fukien and Kwangtung, the Society of Brothers in Hunan, Hupeh, Kweichow and Szechuan, the Big Sword Society in Anhwei, Honan and Shantung, the Rational Life Society in Chihli and the three northeastern provinces, and the Green Band in Shanghai and elsewhere One of China's difficult problems is how to handle these people. Brave fighters but apt to be destructive, they can become a revolutionary force if given proper guidance.

To sum up, it can be seen that our enemies are all those in league with imperialism--the warlords, the bureaucrats, the comprador class, the big landlord class and the reactionary section of the intelligentsia attached to them. The leading force in our revolution is the industrial proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. As for the vacillating middle bourgeoisie, their right-wing may become our enemy and their left-wing may become our friend but we must be constantly on our guard and not let them create confusion within our ranks.

Moro rongzhen and The peoples commune

I think we can agree regardless of where we stand that we send our condolences to the lives lost in Beirut, Lebanon. Hopefully the cause of the explosion can be found and avoided in the future.

Moro rongzhen and The peoples commune

Hi, comrades!

Mao tse tung

Naxal wrote:Hi, comrades!

Hello comrade, how are you.

Bennystania

hello comrades, i am new to the region

Attention all members of this region, per Article 3 of our constitution, member nations of this region must have the following classifications: Left Wing Utopia, Civil Rights Lovefest, Anarchy, Scandinavian Liberal Paradise, Left-Leaning College State, Iron Fist Socialists, Benevolent Dictatorship, Liberal Democratic Socialists, Democratic Socialists, Inoffensive Centrist Democracy, Corrupt Dictatorship, Father Knows Best State and Authoritarian Dictatorship. If this is not met by the 18th of June, 2021, you will be kicked from this region. You are welcome to come back once your classification is appropriate. If you attempt to come back without the required statuses mentioned above, you will be banned.

Forward the revolution! Down with fascism and imperialism!

Zhong-guo, The Infamous Glare, and The peoples commune

Post by Chritan suppressed by Zulankan Outpost 42.

Update. Follow-up dispatch below.

Left-wing bias
NationStates, along with most media right now is suffering from overwhelming left-wing bias. Libertarian views are called far-right because the left is so ridiculously off the scale. The World Assembly votes down every General Assembly proposal made by a non-left member. We all know this is true. Just look at the passed resolutions. The Assembly is looking to, by force, turn dissidents into their own by passing badly designed, lackluster proposals full of loopholes. The best example of this is Imperium Anglorum’s resolution #454, consisting of a single sentence. (page=WA_past_resolution/id=454/council=1)
Why was it even passed in the first place? Voting blocks, about which I will speak in another point. Another good example of this is Antifa, an IRL terrorist organization that focuses on striking people they deem as fascists, that is, people who disagree with them. What is funny is that some people consider them to be a positive force. Antifa is a far left anarcho-communist violent terror group, and their NS counterpart is not any better.

Elitism
The old-timers in the game have zero respect for newcomers and treat them as inferior. I have experienced this firsthand. Those individuals are founders, or are part of the government of major regions or region clusters. They know everyone and everyone knows them. This ties into the next point.

Voting blocks in the WA
Have you noticed that within the few first hours of a vote, the vote is often majorly tilted to one side? This is not because of the content of the proposal. People simply don't care about that. When voting, they follow the WA delegate of the region they reside in rather than judging the resolution on their own. Regions, on the other hand, form voting blocks. Voting blocks are coalitions of people that negotiate to vote for each other’s proposals to earn badges and commendations. Sometimes major voting blocks have different voting policies and they vote against each other. When that happens the votes look tied or only slightly tilted to one side. Of course, the vote later tends to go toward the middle because of independent voters. Resolutions are not written to improve anything. They are meant to be lazily manufactured en masse to farm badges or further push the WA to the left.

Abysmal forums (flamebaiting)
This is simple really. Newcomers to the forums that engage in conversations get baited by the troll to enter a discussion, their opponent refuses to acknowledge anything they say, the newbie gets angry and makes a mistake, then the troll files a moderator report. We know how this ends. There are other things too, but I would rather not talk about the forums anymore since they’re a cesspool.

People and their hunger for power
This is how coalitions and mergers happen. One power-hungry individual contacts another suggesting a merger, people move in, people burn out, region collapses, rinse and repeat. Most merger regions are incompatible that is why they often collapse. There are exceptions to this. Merger regions are a machine that converts members into energy, once they run out, they’re dead, so they have to keep moving and preying.

Vote farming
Most probably the biggest problem of the current implementation of the WA in Nationstates.
Newbies often join the bigger regions which results in them getting pulled in to the illusion of “a perfect region” which is just that - an illusion. The only thing they are good for is their vote in the Assembly. Those kinds of regions often have mandatory WA membership.

Feeder regions
page=dispatch/id=1558464
The follow-up: page=dispatch/id=1197835
Read dispatch

EDIT: Another reply, this time crazy communist edition.
This is the follow-up to my previous Bulletin concerning the Problems of NationStates.
Let me start by saying that I did not expect much response, let alone making it on the #2 spot on the Dispatches page. I've decided to expand on it.

Solving the problems
Let's get this out right away - this won't be easy. Here are some things you could do yourself to fight against the bad and for the good.
1. Spread the word
Many of you are doing this, pinning the dispatch on the Reginal Page, posting it on the RMB, sending it to others. This all helps. Awareness will provoke a reaction.
2. Keep your mind open, question everything, be aware
Actively seek out information on the topic. Most problems on the list could have been avoided at the very start if everyone knew how the elite operates. Question this dispatch. I could be wrong about something here and I probably am. Send me telegrams, discuss this with others. Being mistaken is not wrong - refusing to change your mind when the evidence against a thesis is presented, on the other hand, is.
3. Keep Calm
Insulting people is counterproductive. So is panic. If someone intentionally baits you to be angry, go on a walk and cool your head. Anger is a sign of weakness and lack of power.
You are in power.
4. Boycott the NS forums and make your own alternatives
Don't trust the mods and their judgment? They have no power over means of contact outside NS. Use discord, make your own forums, sites and so on (just look how nice this forum page of Enadia is (there was a link here but its dead)). You could even use blogs and their comment system for this purpose. Absolutely everyone can do it. There are many templates just waiting to be used.
5. Be content with what you have
This is mainly aimed at founders and WA delegates of regions. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Mergers are mostly destructive. Many people feel alienated and uncomfortable after them. ALWAYS ask your region-mates what they think about alliances/mergers, joining organizations and so on. Measure your approval. No one wants a tyrant for their delegate.
6. Investigate before associating
If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. Before moving somewhere (or trying to be buddy-buddy with a region), talk to the people there. Read their dispatches. Look at the attitude of the founder. If he's arrogant and exuding an aura of "I'm better than you" (not to be mistaken for charisma) then he most definitely is a bad person. I won't be pointing at people here but if you look for an "alliance" of several regions named after a person, named after a certain month of the year, you will most probably find a landmine. Look at their WA proposals. Are they mostly commendations? Red flag. Are they a raider region? Why are they raiding then? To silence people that have different opinions/raiding people by association with someone they don't like? Antifa? Massive red flag. Raiding for the thrill/trophy regions? If you're into that, go for it.
More points to be added.

Replying to replies
"As a response to your dispatch, I'd like to offer my perspective as a trans woman, leftist, WA Delegate, and arguably a member of the hegemony.
NationStates is not leftist. Believe me, if it were, I'd be a lot happier. We leftists are concentrated because leftism is a popular ideology.

That being said, as a trans woman, NationStates is a place where I do feel safe and loved. That means the world to me while I live in a place that is actively hostile. I'm proud to be on a site like that. If by left-leaning, you mean that NS supports people like me, then yeah, it is. And that's cool because NS was where I came out for the first time." - Anonymous

Let me start by saying that you have an extraordinary view on things. Being gender dysphoric is like painting a target on your back for people who are afraid of you/just plain d*cks. I on the other hand, am an completely average user of NS. I don't get insulted for those things. This is why our mileage varies. And yes, left-bias exists. You didn't experience it because you are currently in a group of people who are nice to you and like-minded. And that's completely fine, the objective of games is to be happy playing them. People on the right face discrimination too. I have been called a fascist quite a few times.
Meanwhile, I have to put up with this: https://pasteboard.co/HzdB4wI.png
and this https://pasteboard.co/HzdBkuf.png
and that https://pasteboard.co/HzdBAUN.png
and many more things. This is just anti-white racism on twitter. It exists. And it's spreading. The bias cannot be denied.
Leftism is not very popular. It's just very vocal and influential. Proof? LinkTrump got elected to president.




I forgot to mention, but if Antifa is not far left and not communist and actually fighting extremism (censorship is always wrong by the way), why did they not raid any communist regions? Communism killed WAY more people than fascism. Shouldn't communism be equally as bad as fascism and nazism (national-SOCIALISM) Linkif not even more so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
Read dispatch



The Problem


NationStates (NS) is a game full of many different, diverse and innovative regions. There are hundreds of different regions to choose from, each with a different community, a different focus and a different culture. There is something for everyone. This means that gameplay can be fun and enjoyable for all, everyone can find their home where they can take part in gameplay (which is the focus of this dispatch, rather than roleplay) and we can be in a fair, diverse, wider community without fun being spoilt by someone else.

However, this is not entirely the case. NS gameplay is dominated by game-created-regions, rather than the more numerous user-created-regions. The larger size and status of GCRs leads to notable figures involved in the gameplay side of NS joining GCRs, instead of focusing on building and promoting UCRs. These 'GCR exclusivists' are prone to complaining about UCRs, who are generally the innocent party in this.

GCRs are able to use their size and power to show diplomatic, political and military influence larger than any UCR could ever do. They have large militaries that they use to invade innocent UCRs, partaking in occasional defences to clear their name. In the WA, their delegates hold a huge voting power, so large that the GCR delegates can easily sway any WA resolution vote to their advantage, outweighing the interests of smaller regions. Some GCRs capitalise on this by creating dispatches asking people to vote a certain way, before upvoting said dispatch to the top spots on the dispatches page. This leads to oblivious nations blindly voting in the WA based on the wishes of GCRs. While this sounds unimportant, it can be the difference between a region being liberated or not liberated, thus deciding the future of a region that several nations call, or have called, home.

Ultimately, GCRs are power-hungry, influence-seeking regions who are concerned about themselves and themselves only, even if this is at the expense of the rest of the NS community.



The Userite


GCRs get all the attention, yet this does not mean that it is GCRs that are the ones who deserve all the attention. Moreover, it is the UCRs that are the ones who deserve the attention. Hundreds of different regions, most of which are innovative, diverse and great communities. UCRs cater for anybody's and everybody's needs. For example, there are UCRs who do not have discords, for those who prefer onsite. There are UCRs that have clever gimmicks, such as centrally-planned economies and communities that travel between other UCRs on the site.

UCRs also have stronger communities than GCRs. The activity level of most GCRs is somewhat overwhelming, and the size of the regions mean that it's more difficult for new players to get involved and noticed, not impossible, but daunting. Meanwhile UCRs have somewhat active communities where smaller groups of nations get to know each other, build regions and build close bonds with each other. The more diverse nature of UCRs also means that it is easier for people to find somewhere they feel at home, from where they can be themselves, and enjoy themselves. GCRs are more vanilla, less original than this.

I do give some credit to GCRs for what they do, but the real problem is how GCRs get all the attention, and none is given to the regions that have made NS into the wonder it is today. GCRs just take all the attention and give up none to the userites, who are ever bit as innovative, every bit as creative, or arguably, more so, in ways that GCRs could never imagine. I also admit that not all UCRs are perfect. There are many inactive UCRs with only a couple of nations in them, but the focus should be on the more active, more innovative medium-large UCRs (including most regions between 10-1000 nations, although not all are necessarily active). More worryingly, there are the odd fascist, imperialist and discriminatory UCRs, whose creativity I do not celebrate, whose attention I do not give and whose activities I do not condone. However, they are the few bad eggs in a plentiful batch.

At the end of the day, it is the UCRs that are the underappreciated, understated regions that are just as, if not more vital than GCRs.



Going Forward


The in-game power of the GCRs (in regards to the WA and general diplomacy), we cannot overcome, unless if the mods create more GCRs to outweigh the power balance of them, or lessen their power through changing the games code in some other way. But we, as players can do our bit ourselves.

If you are in a GCR, then evaluate why you're there. Perhaps take a look at smaller regions, or even the larger UCRs, and move a puppet into one or two regions to see what their community is like. Try a different type of region. If you like it, then get involved there and make it your main region. If you want to remain in a GCR, remember that power and influence is not everything, and doesn't gain any real benefit in life. So feel free to un-endorse a GCR delegate, attempt to persuade your government to be more considerate of UCRs and less influence-focused.

If you're in a UCR, then pull out or stay out of GCR-focused WA alliances. If you have a regional military, then band together with other UCR militaries to oppose GCRs. Focus on making diplomatic relations with other UCRs, not GCRs. If we're in this together, it is much easier than if we try to protect our own position by building relations with GCRs.

For both, you can always try to ignore GCR voting dispatches, or counter them by downvoting them. The same goes for other not-relevant GCR dispatches.

This is just a few ideas that can get people started in countering the power of GCRs. You can always come up with more of your own and share these with those around you. There are things that the average NS player can do to give UCRs their rightful place as innovators and diversifiers, and the appreciation that they deserve.

Read dispatch

Communism Is Evil: Beware The Red Menace


“Why do you think people defected from the Soviet Union back in the day, under the threat of imprisonment and death? Why do you think people are still risking their lives to swim out of Cuba? Just for fun? Why do you think every communist state was born in violence and held together by fear and isolation? If this is such a wonderful ideology that makes everything better for everyone, why is it that the only way for it to succeed is to force itself down people's throats?”
- Former Citizen Of The Soviet Union

Communism is but a form of slavery, controlling the masses under its tactics of fear. In all of history, those that used the principles of communism have showed nothing but pure tyranny and death of many people. Communism also abolishes religion as the government believes themselves as a “God”. Materialism becomes a big philosophy within Communism. This philosophy is dangerous and flawed. The teachings are as such, man is a electrochemical machine and nothing more. There is no soul, no spirit. Nothing but all things physical, down to just matter. So if this is one of the main philosophies of communism, why live? If there is no purpose in life, what will make a difference if you live or die? There is no hope for the better, no afterlife to strive for so my existence is but a stone on land. That’s communism for you.

Adding, in a Communist State, no matter how hard you work, all is paid and given equal effort. So say Bob and John go out to work. Bob goes out to help build a new statue for the government leader while John just sits around. After the day is over, everyone gets their pay. All equally no matter the effort put in. Same goes for a test, most get an A but one or two get an F, that gets rounded off for a equal grade of about a C. So basically no matter how hard you work, all gets equal credit. There is no purpose in a Communist State as no matter the effort put in for success it equals out for those that are sitting at home, unemployed. This results in the reduced incentives to work hard.

Communism is wrong, an evil ideology that only wants power and will do anything to achieve such. Will hurt it’s lower class, will destroy nations/regions and use the forces of hate and fear as its supply. There is no purpose in a Communist state, only destruction.



Antifa and Its Allies:

Antifa is an organization of radical principles, claiming to be “Anti-Fascist” and helping make society safer from hate as they claim. Though as shown in past and recent events, Antifa is a dangerous organization only spreading hate which goes against what they are fighting for. They use physical violence to hurt anyone who believes in conservative principles. They are extremists, antichrists only spreading their Communist beliefs while hurting anyone that doesn’t believe what they do. Antifa is just another weapon of Communism, they must be silenced to restore a safe environment so unity can be made for the better.

Beware of Antifa and their allies, organizations of hate and destruction.



To Join The Fight Against These Dangersome Communists, telegram Imperial macedonia Of The Black Sun or any Fascist/Anti-Communist region.

Let’s bring back order within NationStates!

FIGHT THE EVIL OF COMMUNISM!

Don’t Become A Drone In Their System.

Read dispatch

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World

By: John Hawkins

Even liberals who've accomplished a lot in their lives and have high IQs often say things on a regular basis that are stunningly, profoundly stupid and at odds with the way the world works. Modern liberalism has become so bereft of common sense and instinctually suicidal that America can only survive over the long haul by thwarting the liberal agenda. In fact, liberalism has become such a toxic and poisonous philosophy that most liberals wouldn't behave differently if their goal were to deliberately destroy the country. So, how does liberalism cause well-meaning, intelligent liberals to get this way? Well, it starts with...

1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone's liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.

2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That's not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they're probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that's wrong is saying that there's an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering "why they hate us" because they feel incapable of saying, “That's wrong," and doing something about it. If you're against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.

5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world and he's challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who've banded together because individually they're powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago, as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.

6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who's at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you're dirt poor, starving, and haven't worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it's very difficult to understand cause and effect in people's lives.

7) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It's a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you're a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being virtuous, even when you've done nothing to earn it?

Read factbook

Curing Communism, or why we cleanse.

by El general augusto pinochet

The Augusto Pinochet
Vengeance Force

Communism: 1.5 Billion Dead.
Communism, Marxism, Socialism: Societies Most Malignant Tumors.
Never, in our entire history has humanity suffered such grievous devastation from a signal source. More than the Black Death, more than the Mongol conquests, more than the Columbian exchange, more than both World Wars. That's the total fallout of only 100 years of Communism on the human race. Smallpox alone has even come close to enjoying greater success in its mass-murdering career, falling short by One Billion, although the Communist disease has proven far harder to eradicate. Karl Marx himself compared Communism to a demon, a "spectre" in his filthy little pamphlet. Over one Billion people were brutally enslaved by the Red Menace during the height of its outbreak, forced into hard labour, relocated, starved, shot, and stripped of all possession. More efficiently and cruelly than any previously know pestilence, Communism today still tortures its victims in nations like North Korea, Angola, Ethiopia and Cuba. The Chinese Communist government, which still maintains concentration camps, slave labour and oppression, admits it's citizens "suffered" under Mao's reign of terror. No matter how weak or strong the strain of the Marxist disease to infect a nation has been; there has been no country contaminated with Communism whose citizens have not tried to flee its brutality, which abstained from horrific crackdowns on its own people, which refrained from mass murders in the name of "equality". Every form Communism is truly evil, and no form can be considered a joke (except perhaps in terms of economic viability) or tolerable in society. Just one contaminated host can spread the pestilence swiftly through deadly lies, exploitation and psychotic propaganda. This effective method of contagion is leading to the infection of today's more misinformed and impressionable members of society at an alarming rate.
(Evidence shall be provided for all statistics in due course, although what do Communists care about facts?)
Communism, Islamism, Liberalism: 13 Billion Dead.

Why Communism doesn't work

In commencing this testimony, it is best to declare a few, simple, undeniable and absolute facts: Communism is utterly immoral, ineffective and foolishly idealistic. It has never worked and never will work. The only thing that works in Communism is the Millions of victims forced into hard labour, in prison camps or on the once-productive farms turned useless by Communist idiocy. Communism or Socialism is immoral and ineffective, simply in theory not just in practise.

The idea of a bin/garbage man being paid the same as a brain surgeon is ridiculous. Even more moderate socialism doesn't work, as seen in Venezuela. Once the state takes more of the workers pay, there is less incentive to work. With the state paying for more services, there is less incentive to work. With less/more expensive consumer luxuries, the less incentive there is to work. With a stagnant economy, the less incentive there is to invest. With higher business tax and regulation, the less incentive there is to work. If industry is democratised, the workers will simply pay themselves more. If nobody wants to work hard the state has to act, it has to get larger, more centralised, more powerful. It has to threaten people with death to work, or introduce dystopian reward policies. "No work, no potato", the secret police say as they throw a peasant into a gulag. It sounds ludicrous, but unfortunately was and still is all too true for millions in North Korea and other in Communist countries.

In Communism, there can be no economic growth unless the state artificially enforces radical "progression" policies, which lead to either Millions dying like in Mao's China and Stalin's Russia, or economic collapse (like Mao's China). Ultimately, Communist or Socialist economies stagnate, due to the factors I explained above. The USSR fell because it's people learned about the rich lives of their Western capitalist counterparts compared with stagnant squalor they lived in. Even though nations like Russia and Venezuela had vast natural resources, their economies still collapsed due to Communism. Cuba was forced to introduce capitalist market policies to try and save its struggling economy.

Under Socialism, there is no (or at least a reduced) desire for hard work as I have already explained. This the quality and amount of goods produced decreases. This leads to the breakdown of the beautiful supply and demand market economy, as supply can never satisfy demand. This leads to higher prices for lower quality goods and services. This, of course, is unsustainable so the state economy crashes like the USSR in 1990. Communism will always eventually fail.

The large, centralised states of Communism allow power hungry psychopaths to take charge and engineer mass murders as we have seen in every Communist state. Millions died in Russia, Cambodia, and China due to the malevolent Communist disease. Communism is an internationalist ideology, so naturally Communist states attempt to spread the revolution by whatever means necessary. This leads to brutal imperialism, as seen in the USSR and China. It also leads to the destabilisation of other nations across the globe by finding of militant groups.

Communism can never work as it is incomparable with human nature. Greed, desire and the will to succeed over others is our natural state. Human nature is not a "social construct", but a biological construct forged over millennia. Communism tries to change our natural state of existence, Communism is a "Utopian" dream that only exists in the crazed imaginations of deranged lunatics. It tries to break down simple objective realities of our species, for the sake of this dream. All humans have different needs and desires. So in an egalitarian state, no human's desires are met because one policy cannot be perfect for all.

Communism is also immoral. It seeks to seize and steal property, wealth and the produce of an honest citizens hard labour. Communism replaces a system where we enter into voluntary transactions of labour for payment, with an involuntary system of collectivisation and unfair redistribution. Communism takes seizes the well earned produce of a man's lifetime, and gives it to the undeserving. It is the worst way to challenge human greed into policy, as the lust of a person who has less than their neighbour is translated into the taking away from and giving to another just because one is seen to deserve that thing more.

Socialist see themselves as more moral than Capitalists, as they view free markets as merely greedy CEOs unfairly taking away the produce of a worker. They see the brick-layer as working just as hard as the employer, so it would be unjust for there to be any income inequality. However there is a reason we call some jobs "unskilled". Anyone can do them. It takes time, effort and hard work to make your way to the top and once your there, it's not a walk in the park. Communists have the childish view of economics, that if there are 10 cookies, and 2 people, they each get 5. That's fair, right? However, it fails to take into account how those cookies got there in the first place. They were created because of a demand, which somebody was willing to supply by hard work.

True Communism

An incredibly common argument I see from Communists as to why their ideology doesn't work and is evil, is that true Communism/Socialism has never been tried. The reason Socialism always turns nations like Nicaragua (the safest Latin American country before socialism), Venezuela (the richest Latin American state before socialism), Brazil (Socialist based policy for decades destroyed the economy) and the USSR into cess-Pitts of unimaginable suffering is because none of those nations practise "True Socialism". Marx's pure and Utopian construct has never seen a successful implementation. Balderdash.

Saying that Communism works is like telling a man he can fly. Before you push him off the cliff, he looks down and sees the pile of mangled corpses bellow him.When he raises his concerns, you tell him that those people are victims of gravity as human flight has never been done correctly before. Humans can't fly, because it is scientifically impossible. How do you know if something is scientifically impossible? You run the trial again, and again, and again and again... How many more lives must be lost in this hopeless experiment? How many more Million must die? Looking back at a history of hundreds of millions dying, and Socialism tried hundreds of times in different ways, surely a Commie would be able to at least admit that it is very hard to achieve their "True socialism". Because the idea is so far fetched from reality, it is a almost impossible to achieve in the first place.

Many Communists will say that while Communism has killed Millions, capitalism has killed far more. That while Communism produces dictatorships, so does capitalism. The problem is that while capitalism in occasion produces famine or dictatorship, Communism exclusively produces these things. Capitalism has allowed 100 Billion humans to live on this earth, bringing countless generations out of poverty. Communism has only killed and threatened to wipe out the planet with nuclear weapons. Since Communism fell, we have not been faced with the threat of nuclear war.

But capitalism failed at first...

When you declare the truth that communism failed completely, a Commie may say that capitalism failed at first. They site the following revolutions as capitalism failing: Revolt of the Brotherhoods in Valencia. The Comunero revolt in Castile. The English Revolution of 1642 (succeeded temporarily). The Brabant revolution of 1789, the Kościuszko revolt in Poland in 1794, the Scottish revolt of 1820, the Decembrist revolt in Russia in 1825, the June Rebellion in France in 1830. France, the German states, Denmark, Hungary, Sweden, Poland, Belgium, Ireland, Brazil, and the Italian states all had failed revolutions in 1848.

The problem is that none of these revolutions were in the name of capitalism. The world capitalist system evolved slowly over centuries from the first crusade to around the 1500s when the feudal system was overthrown. It was not as simple as "capitalists overthrow feudalism". No. These revolutions were against authoritarianism, absolute monarchy and Conservative morals. The industrial revolution was hated by these liberals, who wanted a return to agrarian society. Another key difference is that 1.5 Billion people didn't die. Communism is truly Satan's manifestation on earth.

The Holodomor was caused by nature, so...

Stalin's 1932 man made anti-Ukrainian famine killed 7-20 Million innocents. However Commie scum claim it was an ecological disaster, as the whole world was experiencing similar agricultural problems. They cite the post 1935 American "dust bowl" as an example of this upheaval. If that was true, the argument actually supports capitalism, as only in a Communist nations did Millions die. There is no question the famine was man-made: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths)

Nations Victim to Socialism

Death Toll

Afghanistan, Soviet Invasion

3,000,000

Albania, People's Socialist Republic of

200,000

Algeria, Socialist Government

150,000

Angola, People's Republic of

1,000,000

Bangladesh, People's Republic of

5,000,000

Benin, People's Republic of

20,000

Bolivia, Movement for Socialism

100,000

Brazil, Socialist Government

1,800,000

Bulgaria, People's Republic of

350,000

Burkina Faso, Communist Revolt

10,000

Burma, BSPP Socialist Dictatorship

300,000

Burundi, Communist Hutu Genocide

800,000

Cambodia, Communist Genocide

4,000,000

Chad, People's Armed Forces

20,000

Chile, Salvador Allende

30,000

China, People's Republic of

130,000,000

Colombia, FARC Conflict

500,000

Congo, People's Republic of the

100,000

Cuba, Communist Revolution

150,000

Czechoslovakia, People's Republic of

200,000

Egypt, Arab Socialist Union

100,000

El Salvador, Communist Guerrillas

10,000

Ethiopia, People's Democratic Republic of

3,000,000

Finland, Winter War and WW2

500,000

Germany, Soviet Genocide Against Germans

6,500,000

Greece, Communist Civil War

200,000

Guatemala, Communist Civil War

200,000

Guinea, Purges of Ahmed Sékou Touré

100,000

Guinea-Bissau, PAIGC Purges and Guerrillas

30,000

Hungary, People's Republic of

30,000

India, Socialist 1955-1989

100,000

Indonesia, Socialist 1960-1965

3,000,000

Iraq, Arab Socialism under Saddam Hussein

3,500,000

North Korea, DPRK Korean War

5,000,000

Laos, People's Democratic Republic of

215,000

Libya, Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

50,000

Malaya, Communist insurgency

3,000

Mongolia, People's Republic of

210,000

Mozambique, People's Republic of

370,000

Nicaragua, Sandinistas

15,000

Oman, Dhofar Rebellion

12,000

Peru, Shining Path

5,000

Philippines, Communist Guerrillas

12,000

Poland, Three Soviet Invasions and Bloc Member

1,200,000

Romania, Socialist Republic of

1,000,000

Somalia, Somali Democratic Republic's Isaaq genocide

215,000

Spain, Spanish Civil War Against Communism

2,000,000

Sri Lanka, 1971 Marxist Insurrection

5,000

Sudan, 1971 Communist Party Coup

3,000

Syria, Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party 1963-present

600,000

USSR, Soviet Socialist Republic

130,000,000

Venezuela, United Socialist and Communist Party Rule

30,000

Vietnam, Socialist Republic of

4,250,000

Yemen, People's Republic of

120,000

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of

2,500,000

Zaire, Soviet Sponsored Congo Crisis and aftermath

6,000,000

WW2, Soviet Engineered War (Debatable)+Nazi Germany Was "National Socialist"

85,000,000

TOTAL DEATHS DUE TO COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM:

403,815,000

Adding deaths by Abortion:

1.5 Billion

How Communism causes AIDS

Liberalism and rejection of traditional Conservative values is also a big killer. The World Health Organisation suggests that the biggest cause of STDs is "the liberal attitudes espoused by many communities toward multiple sexual partners and pre-marital and outside marriage sexual activity." HIV transmission is most likely in the first few weeks after infection, and is therefore increased when people have more than one sexual partner in the same time period. Around 50 Million people have died from AIDS while around 300 Million people have died from other STDs throughout history. The highest rate of infection is found in homosexual men, especially the youth who live in nations with a liberal attitude towards sex. Cultures which practise polygamy also have a much higher infection rate. Prostitution is also a large transmitter of the disease. The best way to avoid STDs is either to remain celibate or to remain a virgin until married and stay faithful. Drugs also contribute to infection. It has always been a common practise among degenerate liberals to take drugs, as they have no self control or moral code.

The Socialist solution to STD epidemics would be education, and indeed this would be a great help which a fascist state would seek to implement. However, the simplest and cheapest answer is the reinstatement of Conservative values towards sex and marriage combined with greater home education. Distributing free contraceptives does not help, as it merely encourages a culture of sexual promiscuity, while not always being effective at prevention. The legalization and nationalization/regulation of prostitution as well as all drugs would also curb infection. For example, after Portugal legalized all Drugs, HIV infection rate plummeted.

In response to prostitution, a typical Socialist will state that capitalism will always oppress woman and force them into undesirable jobs just to survive. Socialism, they claim, will liberate the female body and break the chains of patriarchy. Why then, does Venezuela have the highest prostitution rate in the world? 120 per 10000 to be exact. The oil rich Socialist state, once the richest in Latin America under its Conservative Dictators, has only 19 doctors per 10000 and thus several times more prostitutes available for its people. Venezuela also has incredibly high rates of HIV infection, with 2% of the population dying from the disease, while in some places 35% of adults are infected (according to the New York Times).

Liberalism and the rejection of Conservative values has killed over 350 Million people, and is sure to kill more as Super bugs are allowed to develop. Only the enlightening of international culture and the eradication of the Liberal gene can save many Millions in the future. The all-conquering Truth must mercifully deliver humanity and save them from their sins.

Abortion: How Communism kills Children

Since the Communist party took charge of China, 500 Million Abortions have been performed. Without this mainly female genocide, China would likely have over 2 Billion people now. Without Communism, China would by now be the world's greatest superpower. The capitalist reforms which were implemented after Mao's death would have already been in force by the 1950s and the 140 Million he murdered would still be alive. Not only China, but the world would be decades ahead in wealth, technology and wealth if Communism never infected China. The World still wouldn't have reached its 10 Billion population cap, and most probably would have increased said cap. The entire world has been held back perhaps 100 years due to Communism and Indian socialism. We as a species can no longer afford any more delay.

Abortion is perhaps the worst legacy of Communism and the decay of Conservative values due to liberal scum. Since 1900, 2 Billion children have been killed. Abortion is definitively and clinically murder. After 20 Weeks, it is the deliberate ending of a thinking, feeling and living human life. Before 20 Weeks it is the termination of an almost guaranteed life. What court would allow the euthanasia of a "brain-dead" patient who doctors know would wake up in 9 months? A Communist one.

El General Pinochet banned all abortions in his merciful wisdom, and all nations should admire this action. Of course, I am no hypocrite. Abortion may be murder, but murder can sometimes be justified. In the case of war and the death penalty for example. When the mother has a high chance of death, an abortion may be needed to save her. However these cases are relatively rare. In China, most babies were executed simply due to the one child policy.

The Soviet Union had an incredibly high abortion rate, on average 6.5 Million per year in a nation of only 250 Million people. This lead to an astonishing 400 Million Abortions in the Soviet union in 70 years. The people turned to Abortion as the primary method of birth control, and this abortion culture continues in Russia to this day.

How Socialism Creates "Rape Culture"

The USSR, the bastion of moral purity and female liberation that it was, is responsible for the largest mass rapes in history: http://www.globeatwar.com/article/red-armys-rape-europe

The Scandinavian feminist Utopias, pointed to as an example of Socialist (Welfare State) success, are literal hell for women. Sweden has the highest rape rate outside of Africa, and the fifth highest in the world, with most women scared to leave their homes. While this has a lot to do with the refugee crisis, the problem has always plagued the Welfare state. In 2002, Sweden and Finland had the joint third highest proportion of rape victims in the world. Denmark, Canada, Australia and the UK all following them at the top. The rape issue in Welfare states can either be attributed to their foolish migration policies, or the Liberal sexual attitudes championed by the state. Either way, if you are a woman in a Socialist nation, prepare to face the risks of rape.

Cuba also has a big problem with "Transactional sex", Sex trafficking and Child exploitation. Woman are forced to enter relationships with powerful men or tourists just to get access to consumer goods which they otherwise could not obtain under the socialist government. Sexual exploitation of children is also a large problem, despite the crime carrying the death penalty. The "Trafficking of persons report" ranks Cuba as a tier 3 (worst) country, in which the government makes no effort to combat widespread sex trafficking. Venezuela and China also fall into the this tier. After the left wing government took power in Chile, the sexual assault rate rose by 8.1%. This is compared to the incredibly low rape rates during the Pinochet years.

Feminism and Cultural Marxism

We live in a world of cultural Marxism. Karl Marx's theory of the privileged bourgeoisie oppressing the downtrodden proletariat; has been translated into the "patriarchy" oppressing women and minorities. Only a revolution of the oppressed can "Crush patriarchy!". In fact, modern Communists are mainly based around this principle, as much as they claim to be standing up for the working class. For example, when arch-conservative Jair Bolsonaro won the Brazilian 2018 presidential election, Communist forums exploded with outrage for Brazil's "LGBT comrades" and "women and minorities". They didn't give a damn about the poor.

The truth is modern Communists don't care about the working class. The left is so infected with identity politics (a theory which divides society by race, gender and sexuality), that they have left behind their traditional voters. This is what led to white working class men voting for Trump in percentages larger than Latinos voted for Hillary. I am not American, but it seems like the entire American left has taken on cultural Marxism. The oppressed people's must be supported, while the oppressors hindered.

Palestine: A tragic Communist love affair

The global Islamic Jihad has brutally ended the lives of One Billion people across the globe, during its evil history. Millions of woman are beaten, whipped, raped, executed and oppressed. Homosexuals have been killed in larger numbers by Islam in the past 100 years than the Nazis. Yet the Communists love Islam. They see it as an oppressed minority group, which fights the genocidal Zionist Jews for freedom. Thousands have died in this conflict.

Islam is not the religion of peace, in 1,400 years it has killed:

  • 600 Million Indians

  • 200 Million Africans

  • 160 Million Europeans

  • 10 Million Buddhists

  • 10 Million Fellow Muslims

  • 20 Million Central Asians

  • 20 Million south East Asians

  • 200 Million by the Black Death, purposely spread to Europe by the Muslim Golden Horde

  • 500 Million from Smallpox, spread across the globe by the Muslim Jihad.

  • +120 Million American Indians killed because the Ottomans closed off the silk road to Europeans, forcing Columbus to go west.

Thus Islam's total death toll is 1.82 Billion. Now you can understand why Muslims are so feared in China and Burma.

Communists, Socialists and lefties love Palestine. They see it as a oppressed state, struggling for freedom. But most importantly they hate Israel. Any, even very young or new Communist, will be fully versed in the atrocities of the Jewish state. They say its soldiers murder babies and children in cold blood, gas families for no reason. Genocide the Palestinian race, enslave them, treat them as second class citizens. They say that the Palestinians were there first, that its their holy land two. Even mainstream US media hosts say they want "a free Palestine from the river to the sea". (a metaphor for the eradication of Israel.) The Palestinians are peaceful people, who only want to live undisturbed on their land. This is not true. Since the time of Mohammad (Pbuh), Muslims have hated Jews. During times of Arab wealth, they lived in peacefully together. But when the money left the Islamic world, old tensions grew. In the 20th century Jews were eradicated from every Muslim majority state and Europe. Many fled to Israel and defended it, knowing what would happen if the Jews did not have at state. It is a myth that the Palestinians were there first. The Jews had always lived in Palestine. In fact, almost ll current Palestinians are the descendants of Arabs who moved to Israel at the same time as the Jews, just in far greater numbers. For every 40 Jewish families who moved to Israel, 400 Palestinian families moved. This is because the Jews were wealthy (had capital), and many Arabs moved to work for them on previously unproductive land.

Has the Palestine's became enraged by the scale of Jewish emigration, they began to revolt and make war against the Jews. The Palestinians were offered their own state on five separate occasions, by the UK, the UN and Israel. But the inability of the Muslims to even negotiate the very generous borders and simply decline led to the evaporation of their bargaining power. Israel has shown in the case of Egypt that it is willing to trade land for peace. It would do the same with Palestine, if only they had agreed.

How does Communism fit into this mess?

The Soviet union supplied vast amounts of weapons to the Arab states in order to crush Israel in 1967. In fact, we first hear of Arabs referred to as "Palestinians" when Egypt’s President Nasser, with help from the Soviet KGB, established the "Palestine Liberation Organisation" in 1964. All of the Arab states that invaded Israel were supplied and encouraged by the Soviet Union, who wanted to remove America from the region. After this, the Communists funded pro Palestine groups, and Communists supported Palestine completely.The Commies have always been anti-Semitic, as Jews were oppressed by the Soviets. Jews are also seen by Socialists has greedy capitalists, this is the view of such Commies as Corbyn in the UK.

He who saves his country commits no crime

On September 11th 1973, Augusto Pinochet led a military coup which overthrew the Socialist government of Salvador Allende, after Parliament voted to remove him due to his attempt to create a dictatorship. 60 people were killed, including Allende himself. The coup came after Allende has destroyed Chile's economy, causing 1000% inflation with his Communist policies. For the next 31 years, Pinochet would be president, military leader and then a Senator for life. His sole rule of the nation ended in 1990, after he won 44% of the vote in a national election (KGB backed Allende won 36% along with his revolutionary allies). During that time, 1,200 Communist militia would be killed by the regime. Far less than the 3,000 killed in a signal day in America on 9/11 2001 or the 150,00 killed by Castro (who died on Pinochet's birth day) in Cuba.

Pinochet implemented capitalist reforms, which though at first saw problems succeeding in a volatile global economy, would transform Chile into the richest nation in South America. Pinochet had the oligarchs responsible for the banking crash arrested and imprisoned for years. When Pinochet left office, Chile's economy, unemployment rate and poverty rate were on page with Latin America. However the more smooth global economic climate of the 1990s (thanks to Reagans earlier reforms), allowed Pinochet's reforms to thrive. 60% of poverty reduction in Chile by 2004 was thanks to capitalism and economic improvement. Chile's economy had improved so much, economists dubbed it "The miracle of Chile". Pinochet had been a God send.

Pinochet also saved the lives of thousand of children. In 1970, infant mortality was 76/1000. In 1985 it was 22/1000. Pinochet also criminalised all abortion. The rape rate was very low, the streets were safe. Nobel laureate and economist Gary Becker states that "Chile's annual growth in per capita real income from 1985-1996 averaged a remarkable 5%, far above the rest of Latin America." Growth rates of exports averaged 11% during Pinochet's leadership, more than any other time in Chile's history.

When the reforms has been implemented, the time has come for El Presidente to face an election. 44% of people voted for him to stay of as dictator. A compliment to the people's love for him and his success. However, later he was arrested in London while seeking medical attention and then in Chile when he returned. A trial was planned, but cancelled Pinochet died a free man in 2006 at the grand old age of 91. My regions aim is to continue his legacy of purging Communism, and avenge his humiliating arrested by Liberal scum like Tony Blair. The Commies may scream mass-murder, but we stand by Napoleon's wisdom: "He who saves his country commits no crime".

The press was free under Pinochet, and heavily critical of him. There was freedom of movement, opposition political parties and free elections in 1988. In 1978, 75% of Chileans endorsed Pinochets rule. Most of those tortured were terrorists, active during the regime. When Castro, murder of 100,000 died (on Pinochet's birthday), the Communist media (Jean-Claude Juncker, Obama and Justin Trudeau included) called him a "hero" who "fought for equality" a "fiery apostle". When Pinochet died they called him a "brutal dictator who repressed Chile" a "notorious symbol of human rights abuse" and who "ruled by terror". Considering Pinochet's regime killed 1% of the amount Castro murdered, in a nation double the population, this is a travesty.

How liberalism killed 9 Billion

Rejection of Religious and conservative values, replaced by Liberal attitudes towards health and life has killed many Billions. The Seven deadly Sins include greed and gluttony, which if not followed leads to lifestyle issues. Tobacco, a leading cause of Cancer, is from the New World which was discovered because the Muslim Ottoman empire closed all other trade routes. Anti-Fat/body shamming supported by the left also contributes to lifestyle related deaths.

3.1 Billion have died to due non-communicable diseases caused by lifestyle which involves taking brief pleasures at the expense of future health. For example, smoking became popularised by people who wished to rebel from Conservative society, and woman who wanted to be seen as strong and independent. Adding STDs to this calculation we get 3.45 Billion. Combined with Abortion, Communism, Islam, Democracy and STDS we reach a staggering 13 Billion deaths due to these things. These cancers are worse than cancer, they cause Cancer

Democracy: Executor of Billions

9 Billion people have died under democracies in our history. Democracies have an average death rate of 10/1000. Dictatorships have a death rate of 3/1000, for example these right-wing absolute monarchies or dictatorships: Egypt, Oman, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, and Bahrain have an average death rate of 3/1000. So two thirds of the 9 Billion who died in democracies could have been saved by dictatorship. That means democracy has murdered 6 Billion people.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_mortality_rate). If we consider the amount of people who have been killed by Communist rebels, and Non-Communicable diseases in democracies, then the number shrinks to 5.55 Billion, but is still disgustingly high.

We must not forget that Hitler came to power democratically, so his murdered can be blamed on the system. Democracy is the breeding ground of Communism, so many of the deaths of that disease can be blamed on democracy. Democracy if filthy and degenerate in general, and it only leads to hate, inefficiency and division. However left-wing dictatorships are also evil. Only a Pinochet style dictatorship can save humanity.

The Glory of Imperialism: the Benevolent British Empire

The following was written by an associate of mine, and while I don't agree with everything it declares, I have decided to publish it here for the benefit of the public discourse.

A YouGov Poll found in 2016 that 43% of British People see the British Empire as a force for Good, while 19% believe it was not. The rest either didn’t know or thought it was neither. But who is right? Is it the 60% of Jamaicans, who according to the Guardian, want Britain to recolonise them who are wrong? Was the British Empire a force for good, or evil? In this testimony I will lay out and respond to the typical criticisms of British Imperialism, and hopefully you will learn about both points of view.

India:

Almost all of the supposed victims of The British Empire died due to famines, and most of them were in India. Although there have always been terrible famines in India, British rule seemed to oversee far more. This can either be attributed to better record keeping or something else: overpopulation.

British rule introduced the miracle of modern medicine to the colonies, it united the 600 warring states of India under a single state. This “Pax Britannia” meant less Indians died in war and less men stayed away from home. Life expectancy rose by 15 years, due to the construction of hospitals, and the introduction of clean water sources. But most importantly, high calorie food become much more available. By introducing modern irrigation and more sophisticated farming techniques, the amount of land being used for farming jumped from a rather inefficient 400000 acres, to 3.2 million acres. More productive western crops were introduced, which yielded far more calories. The result of this was a population explosion. The amount of people in India more than doubled, from 170 Million in 1750 to 400 Million in 1950 according to the Aggregate average of estimates by modern scholars.

As positive as this population increase was, it came with many challenges. The yearly multiplying millions required more and more food, putting strain on agricultural supplies. The increased demand outpaced supply, and this lead to an increase in the price of crops. The final nail in the coffin for Millions of Indians was the fact that although these new crops were superior to the old, they were much more demanding in terms of conditions and water. As soon as a natural hazard (which have become more common since the end of the little ice age) such as drought struck, devastating famine followed. The British government could do nothing to help the situation. These famines affected Millions more than even the entire population of Britain at the time, a nation which was struggling with its own food situation. The famines were tragic yes, but engineered and evil no. They were merely the growing pains of a rapidly growing British Raj thanks to Imperial investment.

However the main criticism of British action during these famines, was their inaction. Many claim the British continued to divert food away, and do nothing to help the populations. However this is not completely true. For example, in the 1870s, Sir Richard Temple supervised the relief in the Mysore state, where relief kitchens were established. However the British government at the time, obsessed with the purity of its championed Laissez Faire doctrine, was very reluctant to act past small scale relieve effort. They also believed that by giving relief, the Indians would become dependent on government help and never produce their own crop. This policy worked as, aside from Bangladesh (1943 and 1973), India has never experienced a large scale famine since 1900. As I have said earlier, to help the 10s of Millions of People starving was impossible considering Britain itself had only 30 Million people.

The British Empire is often also blamed for the chaos and terrible partition. Modern TV dramas, for instance, often claim the borders were drawn by men who knew nothing about the local people. And to them I ask; Where would you have drawn the border? India was a cultural melting pot, with many religions spread out all over the nation relatively equally. A one state solution was favoured by the British until 1945, but opposition by Jinnah and then Gandhi led to borders between India and Pakistan being drawn on rough Geographical and religious boundaries. The Muslims conceded that these boundaries would be decided by the Hindus if Pakistan was to exist. Local chiefs, princes and lords could also decide which state to join. This is what led to the Kashmir crisis and subsequent wars.

Jallianwala Bagh massacre:

A commonly cited tragedy used to claim that the British Empire was worse than the Nazis is the Jallianwala Bagh/Amritsar massacre. 1919 saw mass unrest in India, and the British military became concerned of revolt. Colonel Reginald Dyer, the acting military commander for Amritsar and its environs, proceeded through the city with several city officials, announcing the implementation of a pass system to enter or leave Amritsar, a curfew beginning at 20:00 that night and a ban on all processions and public meetings of four or more persons. The proclamation was read and explained in English, Urdu, Hindi and Punjab however the locals refused to listen. They gathered together in Amritsar to celebrate a festival at night, and the British Commander decided to open fire. 379 of 20,000 gathering Indians were shot by Gurkha troops in 1919. This horrible act was performed by a rogue Commander, and the British government cannot be blamed.

Indian Mutiny:

The Indian mutiny of 1857 is often used as example of the brutality of British Imperialism. It is too often claimed that the British performed genocides on India after the mutiny, in which millions died. The revolt started over the supposed use of cow or pig fat in British cartridges, which angered Hindu and Muslim soldiers. However the death toll of 100,000 is surprisingly small considering the continental scale of the rebellion, which involved over 200 Million people. Atrocities were committed by both sides, however all Empires experience rebellions. All Empires put down rebellions with force. The British Empire was not a bastion of Moral purity, it conquered land and fought wars. It's in the name. However, most nations (including India) have had Empires, and it is foolish to feel guilty about the universal historical development of a modern nation state.

Ireland:

Ah, Ireland… A museum to the Brutal heartlessness of the English. The same situation as in India occurred in this (equal since 1801) member of the union. Where rapid population growth was at the root of the potato famine which devastated Ireland in the 1840s. The Irish historian, Tim Pat Coogan, estimates that between the Blight and the last large famine, the population of Ireland had tripled. It is also a myth that the British government was negligent during the famine. The Whatley Commission on Irish poverty in 1833 suggested that large-scale emigration to the colonies be encouraged and proposed that fisheries be developed and land be reclaimed among other measures. Coogan also states that British Prime Minister Robert Peel set aside £100,000, 10 Million in today's money, for purchasing corn for the Irish.

Boer Concentration Camps:

Many claim that the British invented the concentration camp, that they are equal to the Nazis. This is simply fake news (it was the Spanish in Cuba). The Camps in South Africa were for refugees fleeing from war and Famine. The Boer Dutch soldiers fighting against the British used scorched Earth tactics, destroying many Farmsteads. As a response to this, the British opened up Camps offering safety and food to all those who needed it. However far more refugees fled to these camps than planned for. Logistics in the middle of Africa simply couldn't cope with hundreds of thousands of refugees, especially when Boer fighters disrupted the supply lines to the camps. Around 26,000 of the 160,000 refugees died of various diseases which spread quickly in the crowded camps. However disease was common in Africa. Around 14,000 British soldiers also died of disease in the Boer wars. The British authorities were shocked by the suffering in the camps, Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain ordered that "all possible steps are taken to reduce the rate of mortality." Two British Lieutenants were executed for mistreatment of prisoners. At great effort and great cost, the British Empire reduced the death rate of the camps from 7% to 2% within months. This death rate was lower than that of most British cities. The Boer refugee camps illustrate the horrors of war. However in no way can British wartime accidents and regrettable blunders be compared to the systematic murder of Millions of Jews during WW2.

Freedom:
(I dont agree with this part..)
Although like every single nation in history, the British Empire practiced slavery. It was the first nation in history to abolish the trade in 1807 and fought to end its practice worldwide. The British Empire used 40% of its entire budget and a large proportion of its vast navy to stop slavery. As Paul Martin writes for The Guardian, by patrolling the entire African cost with the “West Africa squadron”.The Royal Navy freed an estimated 150,000 slaves and stopped African tribes from providing thousands more. The cost of this operation was so great, British taxpayers were still repaying the debt accumulated until 2015. Kenan Malik also in the Guardian, however criticizes the cost of ending the slave trade, as he states much of the debt was accumulated reimbursing former slave owners. Frankly I find Malik’s view appallingly and unforgivably racist. Reimbursing slavery was the only way to end slavery in the Empire peacefully, without compensation slave owners would never have given up their essential labour. Would a brutal civil war over slaves have been better in Malik’s view? Would he have preferred Millions of people to die and suffer instead? As the world witnessed in the brutal American civil war, slave owners were willing to fight and die over their property. We shouldn’t at all feel guilty about what our ancestors did to abolish slavery, to do so would to be the White Supremacist, plain and simple. The only reason evil practices such as slavery and piracy are mere rumours from distant lands today is because of the great expense the British Empire went to to abolish them. Even if the English took part in both during our history, so did every other nations. What makes British involvement in slavery unique, is that we ended it and forced all others to do the same.

The British introduced civil liberties, freedom of movement and free markets onto its subjects. Have you heard of the practice of “Sati”? What about Lotus Feet? You have not heard of these evil patriarchal practices because the British abolished them. Sati involved the live burning of women on their husbands funeral piers, and Lotus feet was the Chinese practice of binding young girls feet until they became deformed.

The British introduced free press and free speech into their colonies. For the first time, subjects were free to criticize their masters without fear of punishment. The English system of parliamentary Democracy spread with Imperialism. The World's largest Democracies, India and America were both British Colonies. In fact the only reason why Democracy is the now governing form of most nations is due to the British Empire upholding it and spreading it across the globe. Britain had to fight two huge World wars to defend freedom and democracy, such was its importance to Britain.

As Colin Yeo writes in the “New Statesman”, Freedom of Movement was a integral part of the British Empire. And no, this was not one way migration from the British Isles, this was mainly the other way round. If you were born in Zambia, or any Colony, you would have been Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This citizenship meant a even the subject peoples could move to Britain with ease. This practice was ended finally in 1968.

Whether it was abolishing slavery and Widow burning, or introducing Free press and Democracy, everywhere the British went freedom followed. Don’t take it from, take it from Indian Independence fighter Ghandi. He said, “I find that the British Empire Guarantees my Freedom.” If you love freedom, then you should love the British Empire. An Empire which fought two huge World Wars to preserve the freedoms it held so dear.

Many often criticize the British Empire for oppressing foreign cultures, however this didn't happen unless they were contradictory to basic freedoms. When Charles Napier was confronted by an Indian Priest defending Widow Burning, he said “I understand it’s your custom, but the British have a custom too. We hang men who burn women alive. So if you insist on continuing your tradition, of widow burning, then I will insist on following my British tradition of hanging murderers of women.” There was, however a cultural exchange between Colonist and Colonised. British Tea and Imperial Moustaches are Indian while Cricket is perhaps the most embraced British practice.

Infrastructure Investment:

But what exactly did the British Empire do for its people? Did it loot its Colonies of their natural resources, or did it do more than any other Empire to improve the infrastructure and lives of its subjects? For an in depth look at what the British did for its people, we must turn to the “Crown Jewel” of Empire, India. Or as it was called until 1947, The British Raj.

Incredibly, 80% of India’s current railways were built by the British Empire. Thats 54,000 KM of track over their tenure over the sub-continent. 140,000 Bridges were constructed in India by the British, as well as around 50000 miles of road, alongside dams and 75000 miles of canals. India’s richest Cities; Bombay, New Delhi and Calcutta were all built by the British.

21 universities established in the Indian Subcontinent and 500 colleges were in operation. A vast 13 Million students studied in 300,000 British Built schools. By 1890 some 60,000 Indians had matriculated from these Universities. About a third entered public administration, and another third became lawyers. The result was a very well educated professional state bureaucracy. This is evident as 70% of Civil Service jobs in India were held by Indians, not White British, and the literacy rate increased by 17x. Without all these investments and constructions, India would never have been able to develop as a nation. If only our own government did all this for us today!

All these investments in India cost money, about £50 Billion Pounds (in modern money) was invested in British India during its existence. In comparison, the amount of British investment in the United States around 1840 has been estimated between ₤2 Billion and ₤4 Billion. These developments ensured that the GDP of India doubled over the British rule of India, and yearly growth saw a 5x increase, while GDP per capita increased by $200. India got richer thanks to the British. As for the claim the British looted India's wealth, that is simply not true. The Bank of England records the Indian reserve Bank held a positive balance of £1160 million, with it, on 14 July 1947, and that British India maintained a trade surplus, with the United Kingdom, for the duration of the British Raj. This meant more money was coming from Britain to India than the other way around.

Although the British did do a lot for India and its other Colonies, a common argument made is that India’s GDP dropped from around 23% of the world Economy in 1700 to only 4% 1950. While this may be true, the reasons for this decline are far from the fault of the British. The India experienced a rapid decline in its world GDP share 100 years before the British took control. This was due to a combination of globalisation and the industrial revolution. All the world's manufacturing industry moved from Asia to Europe, and now it is returning to places like India. While the British made a profit from Indian trade, this was far from a one sided looting operation. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement, far better than what India had 1950-90 or under the Mughals.

The Shakee Massacre

The Shakee Massacre on June 23, 1925 resulted in over 50 deaths due to gunfire by British, French and Portuguese forces in Guangzhou, China On June 21, 1925, workers in Hong Kong and Canton went on strike in support of the anti-imperialist May Thirtieth Movement in Shanghai. Two days later, on June 23, over 100,000 people convened in Eastern Jiaochang, announcing their plans to remove imperialism forcefully. At 3 am the conflict began. British and French soldiers, hearing gunshots, began to fire on the protesters. In addition, British warships fired on the north coast of Shameen. Only 50 were killed, 23 of these being professional soldiers. Considering the violence was mainly committed by the French or Portuguese forces, the violent circumstances and the relatively few casualties, this massacre is insignificant in claiming the British were evil.

General Investment in the Colonies:

Between 1865 and 1914 as much British investment went to Africa, Asia, and Latin America as to the United Kingdom itself. Between 4 to 8 percent of GNP was being sent out of the country by British investors in the years 1871—1913, a number significantly higher than that for other developed colonial nations at the time. This massively hurt native British industry, at the expense of overseas development. The native Britons suffered from lack of government investment in them, and soon called for more left wing governments. If the British Empire had taken capital from its colonies, they would have added 50% to British national income. The fact that the British did not ruthlessly exploit their colonies, when it would have brought so many benefits, is a tribute to Imperial benevolence. Estimates of British actual overseas investment, as a percentage of total investment, is 47.7 percent by Edelstein (1982).

The British in Africa:

When the idea of British Imperialism in Africa springs to mind, it often entails an image of White Supremacists mowing down thousands of helpless natives and then enslaving them. Then dividing up the continent into artificial states, which caused civil war and infighting. Resources were looted, and native cultures suppressed. This is all balderdash. For example, 6 out of the ten richest African Countries were British Colonies. 15 of the 22 most free sub Saharan African countries ranked by Freedom house were British colonies or are in the Commonwealth.

Native cultures were supported by the British. For example in Egypt, where on n the whole, the rich and powerful ruling classes in Egypt accepted British rule ( They often sent their children to be educated in Britain. They became lawyers and administrators on behalf of the British.) the British did not try to interfere with the Islamic beliefs of the vast majority of Africans. In fact, British governors actually provided subsidies to help with the building of mosques. In West Africa, where several kingdoms begged for British protection from the French, local chieftains ruled their own peoples using their own customs. However, they paid taxes to Britain. Like in Egypt, the traditional elite gained from British rule and new classes developed.

In South Africa, the local White Boers disliked British rule. They wanted a simple farming life, but British rule made their country increasingly a place of industry and business. The Boers also felt that the native Africans were inferior and should be treated as slaves, while the British insisted that Africans should have rights, and also that British merchants should have the right to mine diamonds in the colony. This lead to conflicts between the British and Boers, which the British won. To compensate the Boers after the wars, massive investment was funnelled into their lands and compromises were reached in regards to African rights. After the British left, the local Whites passed many discriminatory, “separating”, laws.

The Zulus played a key part in South African history. After Shaka the Greats genocidal conquests, the Zulus continued to expand. War broke out over the murder of several Zulus seeking British sanctuary, and local border disputes. After the British defeat at Isandlwana and subsequent victory over the Zulus, no revenge was taken out such as after the Battle of Little Bighorn. The Zulu’s nation was merely carved up and placed under local client chiefs. They were not genocided, as in German West Africa.

The argument that Britain created atrifal states out of hundreds of divided tribes is true, but that has always been the way of Africa. Often, the situation was worse before the British came. The Khedive of Egypt controlled land from Turkey to Mecca, through Syria, through Israel, down the nile to Ethiopia and lake Victoria. This vast state was split up into 10. The Mali, Zulu and Benin Empires all controlled many tribes, with their own artificial borders. To give every culture its own state would have been impossible, as there were thousands of them. The intolerance of African tribes and their neighbours is not the British Empire's fault, but a natural state of societal evolution that was sped up and made less violent by the British.

One point constantly brought up to condemn the British Empire is the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. This was a militant extremist cult, which brutally murdered or tortured thousands of Kenyan, Asian and British civilians to achieve their nationalistic aims during the 1950s. The best known European victim was Michael Ruck, aged six, who was hacked to death with pangas along with his parents, Roger and Esme, and one of the Rucks' farm workers who had tried to help the family. The British responded by sending troops in to stop these terrorists. Some were badly beaten and sometimes tortured, including Barack Obama's grandfather. However this was rare, and normal treatment of terrorist inmates at the time. The uprising continued even after the British left Kenya in 1964. Many cry “massacre!” in relation to this war. However this is nonsense as always. The Hola “massacre” involved a prison riot, were only 11 inmates died. The Chuka “massacre” was the mistaken execution of 20 Kikuyu Home Guard — a loyalist militia recruited by the British to fight the guerrillas. The Mau Mau uprising can be compared to an ISIS rising 70 years ago, which would be met with much more brutality than it did even today. Britain also paid £20 Million in compensation to any innocents that suffered.

Briggs’ Plan “War Crime”:

This counterinsurgency plan was used during the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s. The situation in Malaya was dire due to a large Communist uprising, which received large sympathy from the population. 500,000 Chinese peasants who had illegally moved and farmed on rural Malaysian areas were removed and put in “New Villages”, where they received piped water, electricity, education and good health care.

These people had formed the backbone of the communist guerrilla support: some were genuinely sympathetic to communism; others, considering the weak British presence, communist self-help activism, and the leading role that the communists had played in the anti-Japanese resistance during World War II. They thus regarded the Malayan Communist Party as a legitimate authority, and were not hard to prey upon for contributions. Still others were definitely threatened by the guerrillas into giving support.

By isolating this population in the "new villages", the British were able to stem the critical flow of material, information, and recruits from peasants to guerillas. The new settlements were guarded around-the-clock by police and were partially fortified. This served the twofold purpose of preventing those who were so inclined from getting out and voluntarily aiding the guerrilla, and of preventing the guerrilla from getting in and extracting help via persuasion or intimidation.
This strategy, considering the fact these Chinese were on the land illegally, were aiding the Communists and received excellent care in the New Villages, was perfectly justified. What was not, however, was Batang Kali massacre. This involved the killing of 24 Malaysian civilians by an army patrol. 6 of the 8 men involved were investigated by the British. Although this was awful, it is nothing in comparison to the Millions of people around the world being executed by Communist regimes at the time.

All other Colonial Empires were worse:

Context is always crucial when debating the past. The Empire dominated world was a very different place, according to our modern standards everybody was a racist. The actions of men 100 years ago may seem horrendous today, but in another century all your beliefs will be seen as backwards. For most of our history, we have lived under Empires. So the criticism of the British Empire for merely existing is irrelevant, almost all countries had an Empire. The question is, was the British Empire better or worse in its treatment of subjects than all the others? To find out, we must examine the deeds of Britain's competitors for global domination.

The German Empire performed Herero and Namaqua Genocides in Namibia, in which 110,000 Africans were brutally slaughtered. The Chocolate loving Belgians Genocided over 13 Million Africans and enslaved the entire Congo. The Turkish Empire performed several Genocides on its ethnic Greek and Armenian Populations. The Japanese Empire murdered over 10 Million people in cold blood and performed the systematic Rape of entire cities. The Spanish Empire is responsible for the deaths of over 70 Million Native Americans. The Chinese Qing Empire killed around 30 Million Muslims and Christians. The Portuguese started the transatlantic slave trade. The Nazis killed 12 Million and started a World War, while the Soviets genocided 20 Million Ukrainians, 6 Million German civilians and 60 Million of their own people. The French Empire forced its subjects into unpaid labour and compelled them to learn French. Most French colonies had to literally fight for their independence, while the British granted it peacefully.

Tasmania and Aboriginal “genocide”:

The worst so called “genocide” committed by the British was in Tasmania, where over 800 were killed (including 200 British). This “genocide” occurred in The Black War, and was committed by colonial rouges with no links to the government. About 100 Tasmanian Aboriginal people survived the conflict and Nicholas Clements (2014)—who calculates that the Black War began with an indigenous population of about 2000—has therefore concluded 900 died in that time. He surmises that about one-third may have died through internecine conflict, disease and natural deaths, leaving a "conservative and realistic" estimate of 600 who died in frontier violence, though he admits: "The true figure might be as low as 400”. Although this was tragic, it in no way was or is comparable to any other systematic murder of millions of people, like Stalin's Holodomor or Hitler's Holocaust, which killed 20-40 Million combined.

Clements accepts the genocide argument but also exonerates the colonists themselves of the charge of genocide. He says that unlike genocidal determinations by Nazis against Jews in World War II, Hutus against Tutsis in Rwanda and Ottomans against Armenians in present-day Turkey, which were carried out for ideological reasons, Tasmanian settlers participated in violence largely out of revenge and self-preservation. He adds: "Even those who were motivated by sex or morbid thrill seeking lacked any ideological impetus to exterminate the natives." He also argues that while genocides are inflicted on defeated, captive or otherwise vulnerable minorities, Tasmanian natives appeared as a "capable and terrifying enemy" to colonists and were killed in the context of a war in which both sides killed non-combatants.

Yes, most people in the British Empire were racist, the subject peoples included. But we have to understand that everybody back then was racist and that racism isn't unique to Europeans. In fact, we are far better at killing each other than those in our colonies. The British Empire did their best to end the racist caste system in India, while upholding the “No independence without majority rule” policy in Africa. This policy led to angry White Farmers in African Colonies declaring independence to escape British policies of racial equality. Zimbabwe and South Africa are both examples of this.

WW2:

But what did the British do for the world other than abolishing slavery, spreading democracy, introducing basic freedoms, investing in huge infrastructure projects, and increasing the supply of food? They saved it from evil. In 1940, with the surrender of France in WW2 and with the Hitler-Stalin pact in force, The British Empire was the sole combatant in the war against Communism and Nazism, Britain stood alone against the combined tyrannies of the World. There was a time when the words “We will never surrender” sounded like a lie. But thanks to our Empire, the British eventually defeated tyranny.

The British have always been there in European history, standing up to the continental bullies. They lead a coalition which defeated Napoleon, liberated Greece, fought the Great War against Empire building tyrants, won WW2 against evil and stood up to Communism in the cold war. We have always been on the right, just and liberal side of history. Which is a lot more than most nations, except perhaps America, can claim. Any “war crimes” that were committed in these wars were insignificant compared with the horrors we fought against in all. With luck the EU will fall thanks to us.

But the sun did set on the British Empire. Nationalism has a habit of dying out among the victors, and thriving among the downtrodden. So next time you look up at a full moon, and remember that Britain’s Empire was larger than that huge body, as a Brit don’t feel guilty. At the very least we were just like all the other Empires which have dominated and overseen the progress of human history.

-WORK IN PROGRESS-

Read factbook

The peoples commune

Forum View

Advertisement