Even while they railed against capitalism, the Cultural Marxists had difficulty applying to themselves the ideas they wanted to impose on others. For all the talk of Marxist systems, the institute [of Social Research, i. e. The Frankfurt School] severed its ties with Leo Lowenthal because he dared ask for a pension, and by 1950 the institute’s director enjoyed a salary seven times higher than the lower-level employees made. In fact, nearly all of the Frankfurt School’s major players personally enjoyed the perks of capitalism. Stock quotes adorned a whole wall in Friedrich Pollack’s office. Meanwhile, Herbert Marcuse lived a life of leisure because he was subsidized by his father, who owned a construction company; his father paid for his apartment and provided him with part ownership of a book business. Likewise, Theodor Adorno enjoyed the generous support of his parents well into adulthood. Max Horkheimer was the son of a millionaire industrialist. Jürgen Habermas’s father served as the director of the local chamber of commerce. Were these men rebelling against the bourgeoisie, or their parents? Their lavish upbringings do much to explain why these trust-fund revolutionaries never really connected with the workers. Worse, the institute gladly took blood money from the Rockefeller Foundation, and it even accepted a contract from a company that had generously contributed to the Nazi Party and had helped take over factories in conquered nations.Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (via zerogate)
Domenenico Ghirlandaio (1449-1494)
Cappella Tornabuoni Frescoes in Florence
Anonymous asked: in all honesty though, africa IS a black continent, so mandela was right on that matter, justifying their presence there would also justify the negros in europe. not trying to offend, just curious about your point of view on that.
I don’t have a problem with Mandela’s African admirers, but I do take issue with ignorant and/or self-hating whites hailing him a hero.
There’s a world of difference between whites in SF and the thirdworldifican of Europe via government enforced immigration. Besides, whites built South Africa. From what I understand, the land mostly unpopulated before Europeans landed. There were indigenous San and Khoi bushmen, but the Bantu peoples actually migrated from equatorial areas after whites arrived. Also, the Boers as a nation/culture were not transplanted from Europe, but developed in Africa. They’re very much a distinct group onto themselves. The whites are not indigenous, no, but it was their ancestors who put their blood, sweat and tears into that civilisation (or what’s left of it). The same goes for the Americas, Australia, and other white nations outside of the European continent. Separatism is the answer.
Whites never Stole Land from Black South Africans
June 5 2013 – Historic documents show that the Black Population in South Africa has thrived over the past 100 years. Its black population increased by an astonishing 920% since 1913, mainly thanks to the lavish food supplies produced by white farmers and the socio-economic-medical benefits of Western infrastructure.
Meanwhile its white population remained stagnant: in 1913 there were 1,2million whites and 100 years later, there are an estimated 3,4million whites. At least 1million ‘whites’ have already fled since the start of black rule in 1994: an estimated 70,000 whites have already been killed by black-racist murder gangs, amongst them at least 4,000 white ( mostly Boer Afrikaans-speaking) farmers and family-members.
Above: Today, the handful of remaining white South African farmers (Boers, Afrikaners) who still produce excess food are under constant siege: this growing monument near Pietersburg represents the more than 4,000 white farmers and family members who have already been murdered, often cruelly tortured to death, under black rule since 1994. The ANC-regime’s constant propaganda stream blaming ‘whites’ for ‘landthefts’ contribute greatly to these hatecrimes, top genocide-experts believe. (http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html)
The fact that the ANC’s propaganda-campaign is founded on gross historical inaccuracies was revealed this week in a research document from the oldest agricultural union in South Africa – which has documentation dating from 1897.
The Transvaal Agricultural Union report, titled “Whose Land is it Anyway,” was published to counter the growing hatespeech propaganda from the ruling African National Congress party of South Africa.
- There is a growing antigonistic wave of propaganda from the ruling party leading up to the centenary of the 1913 Land Act in South Africa – which however has nothing to do with ‘apartheid’ at all.
The Transvaal Agricultural Union report warns that black supremacists and their supporters quite falsely continue to claim however that this British 1913 Land Act was a “cornerstone of apartheid” and that it represented the “land theft” from the black-African people in South Africa.
- The TAU report warns that the ANC claims are inaccurate when they state that ” whites ‘stole’ land from ‘ indigenous blacks and that this ‘theft’was legally ratified by the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts which divided up the land and codified these divisions.”
Blacks didn’t have Land Tenure laws as Westerners understand them: TAU report:
In reality, “whites who came to South Africa in 1652 and thereafter, found a land devoid of basic development and infrastructure, sparsely populated by meandering tribes who had no written word and whose way of life was the absolute antithesis of Western mores.
“It is now acknowledged that the Khoi-San groups, and their sub-groups, are the indigenous peoples of South Africa.
“Whites and black African groups arrived in various parts of the country around the same time. They met at the Fish River in the Eastern Cape, and wars followed.”
The TAU also pointed out that prior to the arrival of the whites, blacks did not have any concept of land ownership or even writing. “Man in his primitive state did not know the concept of ‘land tenure,’” the report continued.
“When hunter/gatherer groups formed, the first land tenure (if it can be called that) was by nature communal. Before the arrival of the European in South Africa with his tradition of individual land ownership, communal tenure in Africa was the norm.
- “The territory inhabited and/or cultivated by a particular ethnic group was owned and/or utilized by the tribe in the name of their king or chief. Because there was no written word among these peoples, Christian missionaries took it upon themselves to learn and then write and codify the languages of the black people to whom they were ministering. They then taught these people to read and write their own language.”
A great migration of black people from Great Lakes region southwards…
“It is known that a great migration of black people took place from the Great Lakes region southwards, eventually reaching Southern Africa. Numerous reports exist as to which tribe went exactly where. But these reports are not the historical property of the black peoples.
- “Thus their claims to land in South Africa have no empirical foundation. They are based on oral history and folklore, and what was observed by early European travelers and missionaries, by the British colonial presence in the country, by Boer trekkers and administrators.
“If your history is written by others, with what can you contest this history? However, the early settled areas of the black people were later generally recognized as their core areas.”
“From the very beginning of settlement, black and white were segregated. South African history is replete with clashes over land ‘ownership’. There were no title deeds, no courts to decide who owned what. Proclamations and annexations were followed by wars, clashes, agreements and disagreements, theft of livestock, sloppy boundaries and arguments over the measurement and surveying of land; borders were drawn and re-drawn; people moved all over the place and a completely differing approach to farming by both groups existed.
- “In the black community, land was communal and the product of their agricultural activities was mainly for their own consumption. This was subsistence farming, and it persists in today’s South Africa.
“ Soon after the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910 under British Colonial rule, it was deemed imperative to settle the land question once and for all. That government (ruled from London under the British Crown) believed that if land could not be partitioned and allocated within the ambit of a Western title deed system, the very future of South Africa would be put at risk.
“The most immediate problem was food production for a burgeoning population. (It was obvious to the British then that blacks could not produce food for surplus, and to this day this is still the case).
- “The core reason for the 1913 Land Act’s passing was the security of the whites, and particularly the farmers, to give them the necessary security of tenure on their farms to produce the food for what was still a country under the British flag, controlled essentially from London. Gold and diamonds had been discovered, and Britain was not going to give up this new jewel in the Crown.
“Antagonists of the 1913 Act and indeed the 1936 Act should look to Britain for redress. These pieces of legislation were not apartheid Acts—they were devised in South Africa under a government controlled by Britain.
In 1913, there were only 4million blacks in South Africa
“The current population of South Africa according to Stats SA is 52,98million. The 2012 yearbook of the SA Institute of Race Relations noted that in 1911, the SA population comprised of 4m blacks; 1,2m whites; 525,466 coloureds and 152,094 imported Indians.
- “The percentages were white: 21% and black: 67%. One hundred years later, the percentage population increase of blacks was 920%.
Land is a political tool in South Africa – it is not seen as a resource for excess food-production:
“But land in South Africa is a political tool. It is wielded without thought for the morrow. It is proffered within the context of a cultural more that has no place in today’s practical world.
- The issue of division of land under the 1913 Land Act is a blunt weapon used to garner votes by the present SA government to seduce naïve and mostly uneducated followers who cannot feed themselves but who are asked to look upon those who can feed them as ogres who stole their land.
”Recent statistics published by the SA Institute of Race Relations state there were 1, 337,400 ‘units’ of food production in South Africa.
- Of these land sites, 1,256,000 are( black) subsistence farmers; and 35,000 communal area farmers who have turnovers of less than R300,000 per year;
- 24,000 small commercial units have turnovers of less than R300,000 per year, and
- only 22,400 commercial units have turnovers of more than R300,000 per year.“
Only 6 percent of farmers in South Africa produce 95% of all the food for 53-million people…
This means that only 6 percent of farmers in South Africa produce 95 percent of the food for 53 million people.
The report points out that leftist “harping” on the “inequities of the 1913 Land Act are completely at variance with the facts as they existed in the first ten years of the twentieth century.
“Government (and many organizations with strange agendas) continues to harp on the perceived unfairness and injustice of the divisions of land set out in the 1913 Land Act without taking into account South Africa’s pre-1913 recorded history and, importantly, the population of the country at the time.”
South Africa truth
Herbert List - Delphi, Greece, 1936
A young Queen Elizabeth II (still Princess Elizabeth) in 1944 for a theatre production. [X]
Josef Thorak, Schwertträger
Hans Mallon Ehrenmal (Hitlerjugend Ehrenmal)
The Hitler Youth Hans Mallon mausoleum near Bergen on the island of Rügen which was inaugurated in 1937 and demolished in 1945 is largely unknown today. It was built between 1935 and 1937 in honour of Hitler Youth member Hans Mallon who was murdered by communists. The sponsor was the Volksbund deutscher Kriegsgräberfürsorge (german war graves commission) under the direction of the architect Robert Tischler. The impressive monument integrated a pre-existing but much smaller war monument into its design and was a representation of a germanic longhouse from the bronze age. The thatched roof construction of solid beech rested on granite blocks. The entrance was a bronze door with swastikas. Mallon’s body was interred inside and an annual march was held to mark his death. The area to the front of the building contained four large columns each of which supported a ceremonial bowl. Above the entrance there was an inscription from Edda: “Ewig ist der Toten Tatenruhm” (“The deeds of the dead live on for eternity”).
The house acted as a central meeting point for the Hitler Youth in Pommern prior to embarking on the annual “Adolf Hitler March” to Nürnberg and one such ceremony is shown in the in the film “Der Marsch zum Führer.
A “Thingplatz” was also contructed in close proximity to the house and this still exists today. The space is currently an open-air theatre (Rugard-Bühne)
In 1945 all of the flags from the Hitler Youth formations in the east of Germany were brought to the house for storage. It was intended that they should be returned to their original locations once the territories lost to Russia had been recaptured. However, with the soviet forces approaching the house was subsequently demolished to avoid its desecration. Another source gives the following description of events:
"In 1945 the Hans-Mallon house served as the final location for the flags of the HJ from eastern Germany. To prevent their desecration at the hands of the Red Army a HJ officer set light to the thatched roof just as the soviets were approaching."