Page 681 - Microsoft Word - Belicena respaldo

«Fascism»: in a reduced scale, it was happening in the Chinese war what would occur
four years later in the Second World War.

There was just one difference, that for the case it didn’t mean importance becauyse the
awaken man is guided by the facts and not for names: it was the qualifying of
«nationalists» that the members of the party of Chiang Kai-Sek adopted to define
themselves. Curiously, those «nationalists» were not supported by others, the national
socialists, but by the extreme liberalism of the Anglo-Saxon. And that is explained easily
because that is what Chiang and his followers were: exponents of the most reactionary liberal
right-wing of China, that’s to say, the most sepoy. In this of being sepoy, follower of the
colonialist potencies to the detriment of the their own country, it must be admitted that
Chiang Kai-Shek was almost as great as the Mahatma Gandhi, that agent of the English Secret
Service who gave the India to the exploitation of the masters of the commonwealth impeding
that there be concentrated a real nationalist revolution, it means, national socialist.

For this reason, to call Chiang a «nationalist» would be a joke, a tasteless joke, if it is not
for the role that his chiefs of the Synarchy made him represent caused finally the fall of the
millenary Chinese Culture in the miserable and austere Marxist-Leninist Doctrine. No; Chiang
was not nationalist but outright sepoy. And who doubts of it just observe what he did with
Formosa, the modern Taiwan, where there are none popular corporations and the ethical codes
that characterizes the nationalism but the rapacious action of the multinational companies and
the World’s Bank, and the unlimited explotation of the Chinese people, completely outcasted to
decide the Destiny of their «Nation» because this has been already determined by the Synarchy.

If a nation wants to the imperialist, the History offers two classical models, that not for
being less understood by the observers are less utilized in all the times. One is the Greco-
Roman model, inherited from the ancient concept of the «Universal Imperialism» of the Indo-
aryans: this model, and Rome gave us one of the last examples, only demands that the other
populations be submitted militarily, not culturally; thus, the populations of different
idiosuncrasy could be integrated to the Roman Empire conserving their Culture, language and
mores, and, if they were enough fierce to resist with pride the pax romana, they could obtain
extraordinary concessions, as the citizenship of Gauls and Spaniards, and the control of the
army, and from the Empire everything, achieved by the Germans; that was possible because in
this model of Empire the value was settled in the courage, real, of the populations: was more
valuable the bravest one; this principle had indubitable character and no one feared the
imperial ascent of a brave people because it was obvious that such population resulted valuable
for the Empire.

It means, in that first model would not be necessary to practice the cultural
indoctrination of the defeated ones, emply the brainwhasing, destroy them morally, corrupt

681