Who is the real enemy? A different angle …

My first reaction on seeing this, sent by Lord Somber from the States, was OMG, what have we here? A Metallica guy slow to his points, smoking and drinking along the way and waving his hands about between his face and the camera. However, I persevered and he made a number of good points until about 6:45 when he made a simple but very good point indeed.

From then on, it was all uphill. This is his case:

When power is in the hands of the productive, the society is much better. When you have a situation of the shifters of wealth at the top who aren’t productive in themselves – bankers, politicians etc. having the power and then you have the welfare recipients down below who often do nothing productive, these two groups are being paid for by a range of people from the minimum wage earner to the successful businessman- the ones in the middle.

And the ones in the middle are displaying character – they’re getting up each morning and going to work to make enough to keep themselves and their families, to invest in a home and car and they do their sums each week to see what can be afforded and what can not.

The ones who steal power from this productive body of workers – they are the corrupt.

He moves to a second point, asking what do Karl Marx, Osama bin Laden and Michael Moore have in common? Answer, they were all unproductive rich kids who’d never worked a day in their lives. So, faced with studying and reading a whole lot of boring books and working themselves into a position to speak, they decided they’d be crusaders, they manufactured problems to become upset with.

These sorts of people tend to hurt the ones they’re fighting for. He mentions bin Laden and what he brought down on Muslims, feminism and women more unhappy today than ever before and so many of these crusading types and what they have brought down on those they are supposedly helping.

His third point is their technique – they divide and rule. They approach the weaker members of society first, the mentality decrepit or impaired or slow, who don’t have political power, who are generally not producing anything. So they go to women who are staying at home*, they go to poor black neighbourhoods and so on and there is fodder for their theories of oppression.

Black society in the 50s, women at home, did not have it anywhere near as bad as the black power movements and feminists claimed – there was a lot of BS spoken about this. There were issues but not to the extent made out by these crusaders. Blacks were able to work, there were many of good character, they kept their families and were quite orthodox in gthe way they went about life.

Today, if a father stays with his child, the women gets no handouts, the blacks are encouraged to take from the rest of society because they’re oh so oppressed, and this has an effect, not just on the economy but on the character of people. Instead of encouraging productivity, it encourages all these negative values. And feeding this is the black identity politician, the feminist doing similar things and where are they? In parliament, producing nothing but transferring other people’s money.

He goes on to the native reserves and that’s a specifically American thing. He goes into the government guilt money going to the communities via the native chiefs selling identity politics [you could include Zuma in SA here], and they abscond with most of the money. Where did that money come from in the first place?

In the UK, the immigration policy is primarily responsible for the animosity and the type of people allowed in are fuelling this. He mentions that these groups were at a historical disadvantage but were still in a position and had the slef respect to make their own way, build their own homes, such as they were – now they’re a permanent, amputated welfare class being fed by a dwindling class of producers.

So who is the real enemy we’re facing [according to him]? The cultural Marxist, creating fake problems or twisting extant problems in a way which produces this whole phenomenon today.

Feminists who have created an entire generation of latchkey kids, who have sent divorce rates skyrocketing [who initiates the vast majority of divorces?], women getting university degrees through affirmative action programmes, uneducated blacks, destroyed by welfare, being given token positions to make the do-gooders feel assuaged, and the worst aspect – giving women generally and blacks a very bad name amongst the productive class.

He mentions a black blogger he likes who said the black was the canary in the coal mine for feminism.

And what is happening is that all of these people are taking your power, selling it to other people and skimming off the top for themselves. It’s a real industry.


* I take issue with him here, as women who stay at home are being most productive in most cases – they’re running a home economy and they keep the family running – they’re in there keeping things together for the family and that, in my book, is productive.

3 comments for “Who is the real enemy? A different angle …

  1. November 26, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    He is actually canadian, where native reserves are much more of an issue than in the US.

  2. Voice of Reason
    November 26, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    “Black society in the 50s, women at home, did not have it anywhere near as bad as the black power movements and feminists claimed – there was a lot of BS spoken about this.”

    If you are talking about the US, and the Southern States in particular, then it *was* that bad.

Comments are closed.