Social parasitism is a term that in times of political correctness is largely avoided. Particularly against the backdrop of a multicultural society, it can be seen which ethnic groups persistently and consistently avoid work, and instead of work they base their lives on criminal activity and social parasitism. However, contrary to the Marxist bacteria called political correctness, I am going to explain what conditions must be met in order to qualify as a social parasite. Especially when living in England, I believe that this practice is very easy to notice, because many individuals have turned social parasitism into their life careers, which at some point they pass on to the next generation within their racial-cultural group. I am also going to refer to legal sources from Poland.
I decided to write about social parasitism, because I was provoked to do so by the Guardians of Lies, chasing me for my views. They disliked the term ‘social parasite’ so much that I became interested in it and decided to explain it. Political correctness dictates us to live in fear of our own words, thoughts and feelings. Well – I’m a Pole, and fear doesn’t suit me. Fear is like an infectious disease, like a virus that takes over the hearts and minds of an entire nation, driving it to a suicide. When fear meets apathy, the nation is already dead, even though it might not be aware of it yet.
Social parasitism according to the district prosecutor’s office in the Green Mountain town in Poland
“The term is little used today, but it was extremely popular in the times of real socialism. Available dictionaries state that a parasite is primarily an animal or plant organism living at the expense of another organism, but also a man living off someone else’s work [see: J. Bralczyk [ed.], Dictionary 100,000 Needed Words, Scientific Publishing House of Poland , Warsaw 2005 p. 540] In Polish legislation, but also in social and legal journalism, the attitude to work and sources of income constituted the basic criteria differentiating people leading a parasitic lifestyle from the rest of society.
The definition of social parasitism was presented in 1978 by Jan Malec. According to him, anyone who having no health or personal obstacles and being able to find employment, does not work or learns and is dependent on other people, or draws his livelihood from wicked sources, should be considered as leading a parasitic lifestyle [J. Malec, Social parasitism. (…), Criminological and Penitentiary Studies, vol. 8/1978].
This definition referred to the position of the Supreme Court of Poland, which in the resolution of October the 18th 1973, recognized that a person leading a parasitic lifestyle is a criminal offender, because despite ability of continuing education – he doesn’t, and despite of being able to work – he refuses to do so; and additionally the funds for his livelihood are contrary to the principles of social coexistence. In the same resolution it was stated that finding a perpetrator of parasitic lifestyle causes tightening of his sentence, and the choice of a more severe type of punishment [cf. Resolution of the Supreme Court of October 18, 1973, file ref. VI KZP 37/73, Problems of the Rule of Law no. 170].
Despite the work carried out in this direction, the law on combating social parasitism was not passed in Poland. The failure of the initiators of such a solution ended primarily with the attempt to introduce in 1968 to the draft penal code, projects providing for a penalty of restriction of liberty for leading a parasitic lifestyle, consisting in making oneself a permanent source of income from vile practices. Such an attitude was punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years.
The proceeds of the vile practices were earnings from prostitution,
(trade in foreign currencies), speculation in scarce goods, gambling, fraud and begging. In the socio-legal and criminological literature of that time, the parasitic lifestyle was associated unambiguously with other social pathologies, including alcoholism, drug addiction and criminal activity.
On the other hand the bill of 1971, which provided for gradual measures of influence, was widely criticized. These were: a warning interview, educational supervision and a decision to stay in an educational work centre for a period of up to 3 years. There were allegations of the lack of the necessary individualization of the procedure, excessive faith in the possibility of self-shaping decisions about taking up employment, ignoring the need to establish specialized and institutionalized offices prepared for dealing with people addicted to alcohol and suffering from mental retardation; among whom there were many individuals with the features of a parasitic lifestyle [see: J. Malec, op. cit.].
Regardless of the legislative initiatives taken, in the 1970s there were committees for the employment of non-working people in Poland, which appointed national councils. These committees did not have any coercive measures. They only conducted interviews with people considered to be social parasites and issued work orders. According to the police reports at the time, for example in Warsaw 794 persons turned up at the request of the commission, which is about 55% of those who were summoned. 621 people accepted the referral, which is 43%, out of which 197 people actually took up employment, which was almost 14%. However, 33 people in that group abandoned their jobs very quickly. In other locations, the rate of people who actually started work ranged from 15 to 30% of those who were summoned.
Despite some optimism of these statistics, in general the results of the work of the employment committee were assessed as negligible, and the number of people permanently in work to which they were referred to, was considered to be insignificant [cf. J. Malec, op. cit. and sources cited by him].
Some of the forms of social parasitism were attempted to be combated by the Act of October 26th 1982, on proceedings against people who avoided work. This act introduced two related files. The first was an entry in the register of people who avoided the obligation to work, and the second was the list of people who persistently avoided the obligation to work. Men aged 18 to 45, not working, not studying or registered as jobseekers in the intermediation mode, were entered in the register of exempt persons. Apart from reporting, these persons were also required to provide explanations about the reasons for not performing work or studying. The duty of the administrative body was, in turn, to indicate the place of work or to provide assistance in undertaking education, retraining or starting a business. However, avoiding the administration’s offer to take a job already meant entering into the list of people persistently avoiding work with many possible consequences, including carrying out works for public purposes. Failure to report, refusal to appear when summoned, and in particular avoiding commencing public works, were sanctioned with the penalty of restriction of liberty or a fine.
A few years later, the Polish Parliament again dealt with the problem of parasitism. In the resolution of the 18th of June 1986 on combating the phenomena of social pathology and strengthening the moral health of the society (MP of 1986, No. 18, item 118), it was emphasized that social parasitism, like: drunkenness, drug addiction, crime, and unreliable attitudes towards work, waste and mismanagement cause particular concern to society. This applies in particular to the avoidance of work by people capable of performing it, and people taking profits from illegal and unknown sources.
The assessment of the implementation of laws aimed at combating social pathologies by the bodies of the Polish Parliament showed, that they created appropriate conditions for the prevention of pathological phenomena and crime. However, it was recognized that not all of these laws are consistently applied by the bodies and institutions responsible for complying with them. In particular it concerned the act on upbringing youth in sobriety and counteracting alcoholism, and the act on dealing with people who avoid work.
Under conditions of the free market economy, the phenomenon of social parasitism lost its right to exist, and the laws that were to combat it lost their legal force. On the other hand, work has become a scarce commodity, and more precisely the general availability of it. There are new terms describing the conditions of social functioning, including the concept of the so-called structural unemployment, European orphanhood, sponsoring and much more. Problems with social adaptation and meeting expectations are more and more often described as ‘symptoms of social maladjustment’.
(Note: in the black ghettos in the USA and UK, which are infamous for their criminal activities and massive welfare dependance, the politically correct system itself increases social parasitism, using many ephemisms about the minorities and pretending that problems do not exist. In my opinion however, sometimes you have to offend minorities for the good of the country and fairness towards the working majority. The unique nation in terms of social parasitism are Gypsies, who automatically become fully dependant on welfare system in whatever country they settle.)
In the textbooks of criminology, the chapters devoted to parasitism have been changed into chapters dealing with the case of unemployment, as an occurrence of social pathology generating such effects as: stress, depression, family breakdown, alcoholism, drug addiction, thefts and robberies [cf. eg B. Hołyst, Criminology, Legal Publishing House LexisNexis, Warsaw 2004, p. 553].
Unemployment however, although it also manifests itself in staying out of work, is a phenomenon completely different from parasitism. Parasitism meant avoiding work, despite its availability. Unemployment is a phenomenon of professional inactivity of people who are able to work and who declare their readiness to work, and at the same time for those for whom income from work is the basis of their existence. It was Mark Twain who wrote that we should be grateful to Adam, because for having listened to Eve, he took the blessing of laziness from us and gave in return the curse of hard work. Unfortunately, it still does not affect everyone. [J.W.] “
Legal regulation of social parasitism according to the Polish Archives of Criminology
“According to the supporters of such a solution, there are several reasons for the social need and purpose, to legally regulate the problem of” social parasitism “:
a. The main argument of the supporters of the law was the reference to the fact, that for years the problem of “social parasitism” has outraged working people, who were unable to stand parasitic scum around them, and that’s why they demanded the adoption of the “anti-parasitic law”. In that context, these advocates argued that the existence of “social parasitism” undermines the entire system of value of the society, which is based on work. The occurrence of such creatures offends the sense of justice of working people, it lowers social discipline, it spreads cunning and combinationalism, causes a disturbance of reliable work as a social value, which is a criteria for human evaluation. Such act would therefore not only show a negative evaluation of such parasitic creatures, but it could also become an instrument to strengthen the social discipline.
b. In justifying the legal necessity to interfere in “social parasitism”, a strong emphasis was also placed on the criminogenic aspect of that phenomenon, which favours the spread of crime. Crime statistics were cited, according to which more than 1/4 of all adults suspected of committing a crime were people not working and not studying, and in the case of some crimes against a property that number was twice as high (about half of all suspects). One of the main objectives of such act would therefore be to prevent crime.
c. The supporters of the act also pointed to the large number of vacancies, with the simultaneous shortage of manpower. Thus, it would be possible to use social parasites in public works, for which there is a lack of financial resources. “
(Example: if we surrounded the black borough of Lambeth with barbed wire and cut all the Negroes’ benefits, they would have a choice: either to work in the English fields for fair wages, starve to death, or return to Jamaica. In the meantime, they could look for a different job. They would have to pay for any damage to the property as well, as this is what they always do. After introduction of my amazing solution, immigration would not be needed anymore, and potential refugees would be afraid to come to England because they would have to work too. When ‘gifts from Allah’ finish, immigration finishes too.)
Vulgar creation of social parasites by the British Government
However, social parasitism is not only the fault of the society, but also the fault of the Government, which creates social parasitism in order to maintain power. Democracy ends when the Government sees that it is able to buy its voters’ votes with their own money. The political offer of socialist countries, to add confusion also called ‘democratic’ ones, includes a number of benefits that impoverish the state treasury. Those are subsidies for free housing for parasites, and subsidies for those who are “unable to work”: that is for alcoholics, drug addicts, beggars, criminals and subversives. There is also a wide variety of benefits for illegal immigrants, including: those who fight for the cause of Allah, those who suffer from racism, who suffer from intolerance, who suffer from being women, and of course those who suffer from such laziness that they are too lazy to even make up their own story.
For example, in England, which had been classified by economists as a liberal welfare state, there was nobody available for work, even though the mass invasion from all over the world was supposed to create jobs and stimulate the economy. The British Prime Minister once complained that there was nobody to pick vegetables in British fields, and later it became a tragic-comic situation. It turned out that despite immigration beyond strength and despite unemployment, there was still no one to pick vegetables. Negroes, Muslims, Gypsies, as well as indebted and unemployed English people didn’t want to pick vegetables, because they had such benefits that it was not profitable for them to work. Besides, Negroes were not forced to work because “they were victims of racism and slavery.” Muslims were also not forced to work because they ‘were victims of racism and Islamophobia’. Gypsies, of whom there are about 320,000 in Great Britain and who rely only on crime and total welfare assistance are not forced to work at all, because in England no one wants to offend them with such an idea. The English did not want to pick vegetables in the English fields because they also had benefits, and besides, they are the ‘masters of the world’, and they are ‘simply the best’, so they wouldn’t work in farms neither. For that reason The British Government first employed the Poles, and when they had enough, they took Romanians and Bulgarians. Later, the lazy English people complained about immigration from Eastern Europe because they ‘took their jobs’. In my opinion, these are the classic examples of creating social parasitism taken from real life. According to statistical surveys in the UK, only 1% of the workforce in the English farms is English, even though no one forbids the unemployed English people to take those jobs.
As I write this article in August 2021, fruit and vegetables are rotting in English fields because there is a shortage of workers from Eastern Europe. Where is that mythical English workforce that complained about Poles taking their jobs? I believe that the British Government should cut all parasites’ benefits as soon as possible, and then England could quickly become the Empire of Agriculture. If Blacks and Muslims helped English people to work in British farms, the level of crime would drop dramatically and the country would save a fortune.
I remember an English saying in the UK: ‘Those bloody Poles take our jobs.’ I’m afraid that when there are no Poles in England, and there will be no one to work in English factories and in English fields, this saying will change to: ‘Those bloody Poles refuse to take our jobs.’ In my opinion, the English expect that someone would throw a suitcase of money at them, and give them a council house by the lake of beer.
In such system honest people who really want to work, start to wonder, that: ‘if the government gives money to career parasites, and often even to those who shouldn’t even be allowed to live in this country, then we would be stupid if we didn’t take free money too, especially that we have the right to do so and the government wants to give it to us too.’ This is how a vicious circle starts to spin, because honestly working people begin to come to the conclusion that work becomes unprofitable, and values such as: honesty, morality, reliability, and diligence become a matter of negotiation. The natural continuation of such a system is the collapse of values.
Exceptions from the list of social parasites
To be precise: I believe that the State should help its citizens in need, but it should not allow citizens and illegal immigrants to be supported by the State for life, and I don’t believe that the career of a social parasite should be inherited by the next generation. It should be only a temporary help to mobilize people to work, under a regime of forced labour or deportation. In other words, let the State pay for 3 months, and then instead of serving fish on a silver platter, the State should give such citizens a fishing rod, a bait, and teach its citizens how to fish by themselves.
I think there should be one exception: I would only pay white mothers for having healthy white babies. This would be a £1,000 cash prize, plus a package of cosmetics and accessories for mother and her baby to start with, worth £150. Then a monthly payment of £100 for every white child up to the age of 18. I believe that in that case it is worth paying for white children in your country, because it’s a wise investment in your own nation. (Conditions would have to apply to prevent social pathologies, and depending on the number of white children in the family.)
The only people who should be released from the duty of work, are those who could afford to live off their capital (real estate, gold reserves, stock exchange, patents, brand names, intellectual property, and others).
Social parasitism through the eyes of a witness
Personally, I also tested a few parasites who made a life career out of begging and criminal activity. Unfortunately, there are more and more homeless people and beggars in London, and in Warsaw, and from what I know also in American cities. In England, I see more and more tents and lairs in the streets and by shops. Someone who is naive might think that those people are in a difficult situation and that fate has hurt them so much? I don’t think so. I believe that they chose such life and they feel very comfortably with it. Those who choose to live as parasites have always been parasites, but when the Government stopped paying them benefits, they landed on the streets and continue to live as parasites.
The same things is with wild tenants who notoriously break into English houses to live there, drink and smoke drugs, until the police throw them out. Their excuse is always that there was a home, so they checked in for a while.
While walking in my town I often see an Englishman sitting in the street, drinking beer and smoking joints, who always asks me for some change. I told him that there was a shortage of drivers, and that they were paying well. He said he didn’t have a driver’s license. I offered him a job at a construction site for £120 a day, but he said that he didn’t want to work that hard. Since then, that English parasite pretends he doesn’t know me.
In London, I even met a Pole who was begging outside a shop. He said honestly that it was not profitable for him to work, because he could beg 20-30 pounds a day, and sometimes someone would even give him a cigarette. I didn’t get into a conversation with him about honor or ambition, so I just offered to buy him a chocolate bar. This however harmed his honour so much, that he asked me if I wanted him to buy me a chocolate bar!
Whilst walking around Warsaw, I was stopped by a Polish parasite begging for change. He was well dressed and didn’t look desperate, although he was drunk. I told him that I had a construction company in Warsaw and I was looking for people to work. I could pay PLN 4,500 a month and give as much coffee and tea as he could drink. He walked away in silence.
I heard that in Warsaw one homeless man was begging because he was hungry, so a passer-by bought him a sandwich. To his surprise the beggar was offended, because he didin’t like sandwiches. He wanted a kebab. (This is what a Polish poverty looks like.)
After years of watching social parasites, it is clear to me that each one of them has their own territory, just like a Colorado potato beetle eats in the same field. In the evenings, an Englishwoman always asks for money in the same parking lot, and she always has the same story. She asks for 20 pence to get home as she says that there is no bus service. After a few hours, she returns home with her earnings on foot, because she lives nearby.
Once in Poland, someone I used to know told me how he was driving through Romania, and of course there were Gypsies begging at the traffic lights. That naive Pole and his friends gave them juices, bread, sausages, etc. – but after some time the Gypsy woman who spoke quite a good Polish asked him with a bored voice: ‘Don’t you have euros?’. Exactly. What’s the point to work, when so many suckers give things away for free. First, the Government gives out to those who don’t want to work, and then the working citizens give them even more.
As I noticed, the term “social parasitism”, or officially calling someone a parasite, always hurts tauthorities in the politically correct countries; that means in countries where the truth is perceived as the greatest offense. Such countries are England and Poland, that is countries of shocking hypocrisy and selective democracy. According to the reports of BBC and Reuters, in Belarus for example there was a law commonly known as the “law against social parasites“, which required those who worked less than 183 days in a year, to pay the government $250 in compensation for lost taxes. Eventually however, after numerous protests that law was abandoned. Lukashenka also said that: ‘those who have already paid the parasite tax for 2016 will get their money back if they find a job in 2017’. (I don’t defend the policies of President Lukashenka of Belarus, because I don’t know what it’s really like over there. I only know how Lukashenka is presented by the Western media, and by those who want to introduce worthless ‘EU democracy’ there.)
Non-Governmental Organizations as social parasites
Any country which is economically strong and has influence, always attracts social parasites in the form of ‘Non-Governmental Organizations’. Sometimes such organizations are self-supporting, but often they are also supported by the taxpayers of a given country. In addition, non-governmental organizations profit from social donations, most often presenting themselves as victims, while portraying the natives of a given nation as guilty of alleged crimes and injustice. A parasitic non-governmental organization can be very harmful, because by forcing an avalanche of sympathy, it robs and divides the native nation, at the same time creating poverty, chaos and mental illness, most often relying on the infinite guilt of the occupied nation. Therefore the most important thing is to never apologize and never pay, although it is even more important that there are no hostile and no parasitic organizations in the Fatherland at all. In order to confuse the occupied nation, a parasitic organization is defined as “the lobby of another country to the government of our country”. This is a parasite; an enemy leech striving to destroy our people and rob our country, which in its naivety accepted it. Usually Jews, people of colour, homosexuals, Muslims and women are the ones who feel very hurt and offended. Political and economic victories always begin with the ‘Divide and Conquer’ war tactic.
Apart from the above, there is also an extreme form of parasitism of ‘Non-Governmental Organizations’. This happens when the Government becomes a client of a foreign lobby, in return for empty promises and economic and military aid, which might never come. To achieve this, the Government even adjusts its law to the requirements of ‘Non-Governmental Organizations’. In a more extreme form, such Government sends its troops to some unknown exotic wars, because this is what the lobby wants. In such conditions, the ‘Non-Governmental Lobby’ squeezes out of a given country as much as it can, while all talks about friendship and cooperation don’t even make sense anymore. The lobby pays for strikes, it promotes manifestos and political coups, it publishes hostile propaganda, and it buys TV and radio stations. As a result, the country is split from the inside and it falls apart. Those lobbies are organizations of Jewish origin hiding behind false flags, and goys who have sold their souls to their cause!!!
I believe that the Government of our Fatherland, which allows for the establishment of a parasitic lobby of a hostile or even friendly country, is either bought up or naive to the limits. A friendly country can also be bought, and can also have naive politicians. The foreign country’s lobby members are never in our Fatherland because of friendship. They are only ambassadors of their country or their ethnic group in our country, and their success depends mainly on the stupidity and prostitution of our politicians.
In my opinion, the British Government is not a government. It’s a corporation controlled by the international Masonic Jewry, or it is at least strongly influenced by it.
Private organizations as social parasites
As an example, I will give a left-wing organization that probably doesn’t even realize that it is a parasite, although it probably knows that it is an internal enemy. Well, native Europeans are doomed to the role of suspects, to the role of those who have to be watched, and who are allegedly guilty of all evil. One of the ways to conquer the White countries is to destroy their racial and cultural identities, and destroy the socio-racial construct known as the “White Race” – through constant accusation of “racism”, whatever that means? This by the way, was the main political doctrine of the communist Jew Leon Trotsky, who is a political father figure of the anti-British Labour Party.
That party and the other so-called ‘opposition parties’ in England use this method to justify the destruction of the English and the European nations living in England. In doing so, they want to weaken our defensive instincts and the identity of the tribe. This term is used ONLY in relation to Europeans. The accusation of ‘racism’ is a method of control. When a European dares to see anything from his point of view and tries to protect himself or his white people.
A parasitic private organization that bases its ideology on Bolshevism is too lazy to work. So instead it navigates the internet in search for ‘racists’, that is, those who don’t fit their ideology. Once they find someone like me who has a strong identity of white tribe, they immediately inform the prosecution service, though usually the most corrupt one, which is also their ideological ally.
In order to get money thorugh the dealings of informing, a Bolshevik parasite from such an organization publishes fake social media posts that: ‘Somewhere, just around the corner, maybe even your neighbour, or maybe your brother, is a terrible racist. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do to fight racism because we don’t have the money.’ Under each of such entries there is a bank account of that organization, so that naive sheep could pay them to fight racism which doesn’t exist; unless it is provoked by the Left. Then such organization does not have to work, it does not have to pay taxes, it registers itself as a ‘charity’ even though it doesn’t fund anything, and hard-working naïves send them money for fat meals and alcohol. This is exactly what it looks like.
Obviously, creatures of such kind don’t like to be called by their true names. They don’t like words such as: parasite, informer, traitor, rat, liar or salesman – even though they are informers against their own nation, they sniff in their affairs, they hand-over their countrymen to the police, they make false accusations, and they don’t do it for free. Society on the other hand, benefits from them even less than from tits on a wild boar.
Social parasitism at the highest levels of power
When I watch Parliaments in the so-called ‘democratic countries’, I am under impression that they are social clubs where old pals get together from time to time. First they are in one party, then in another one, meanwhile they lie, they cause scandals, and over the years they contradict themselves many times. I have the impression that politicians in the so-called ‘democratic countries’ are excellent actors, who might now even know what they talk about. Somehow they push forward until they finally reach such a dead end, when they can’t pretend anymore, and they provoke a revolution and create the same system under a different name. The nation on the other hand, believes their lies, pays for the upkeep of these parasites, and maintains their corruption. Of course, I don’t say say that about all politicians. Sometimes there are those who really want to do something good for their nation, but I think that most of them simply don’t care. This is a group of high-profile people who aren’t very good at reading or writing, but they are excellent at counting. . . . . . our taxes and fines, and their expenses and salaries.
For example in Poland, there are 560 seats in both the Parliament and the Senate. In the United Kingdom there are as many as 650 MPs, and additionally 800 lords who elect themselves. I don’t know how the United Kingdom is so low on the global corruption index, if anyone who has high profile friends, who has money, and who is a landowner, can become a ‘lord’. The non-elected lords are the ones who have real power, while the 650 MPs elected by the British people are there only to argue in front of the cameras, and pretend that there is democracy.
I think that there would be more use out of lords in the potato field than in the Parliament. In both Poland and England there are such politicians who only keep their seats warm in the chamber, and they collect dust. I think it would be a good idea to rank each politician’s achievements once a year. In England for example, there was a ‘business secretary’ in the liberal party, who himself admitted that he was wrong. There are people in politics who have done nothing throughout their entire careers. This really doesn’t make any sense. Would it change anything if there were only 20 lords in Westminster instead of 800 !? I doubt it very much. Those hard-headed ‘business experts’ full of self-inflated pride have not even run a fish and chip shop, and they want to make economic decisions for the whole country. If I was the leader of Poland (not to be confused with the president or the prime minister), then the minister of defense would be an army general, and the helath minister would be a doctor. On the other hand, the finance minister wouldn’t be someone with a diploma after graduating from an overpaid university, but someone who thanks to his talent and intelligence earned millions out of nothing. This is what my Parliament would look like; and the rest of those parasites I would send to a farm to pick vegetables and raise pigs.
Attention! ‘English Lords’! ! ! It makes me laugh so much that I can’t stand it. I even doubt if those pests are at least English ? !
I think this article raises the final question, if social parasitism would ever end? I think it will never end, because people are divided into two types: crooks and losers. This pattern has continued uninterruptedly from the beginning of mankind, and will continue to do so. Someone might ask if those people are not ashamed of themselves, to which I answer that they are not. In my article on morality I answered the question of what morality is, and whether it is a unitary feature. Well, it is not; because there is morality of a wolf, there is a lion morality, hyena morality, vulture morality, and a viper morality. In my opinion, each of those animals acts morally according to their own nature, and that’s why I divide people in exactly the same way.
If we additionally live in a socialist country, then I believe that it is actually a breeding ground for social parasites, because the society which believes, that ‘the government gives away for free’ is parasitic in its own nature. Socialism kills ambition, ingenuity, innovation, economic combativeness, and the economy of the whole country. Socialism leads to poverty, alcoholism, development of parasitism, corruption, and the industry of flourishing bureaucracy. When there is no one to rob anymore because the nation has gone bankrupt, then socialism ends and it transforms into its extreme form; which is Communism. This is how the Soviet Union collapsed, and with it all the countries of the former Eastern Bloc, which also collapsed and were set back in time by 50 years. So why do the followers of socialism think that next time it might be different? Socialism in Cuba was so extreme that girls used to give themselves away for a pack of tights and a fragrant soap. This is what socialism truly is, and I say this to all the future social parasites who want something for free.
I also caution my readers to not to fall, for what I call: ‘the psychology of clothing and vocabulary’. By its very nature a suit provokes respect, as so does the fact that someone has a degree on the wall, and has read a thesaurus to be able to shine in the crowd. In my experience; a poser, a street smart who pretends to be an intellectual may be worth nothing, and may be a social parasite too. I have the greatest respect for people who can present their work. It may be a potter who builds a stove, or an engineer who builds MRI scanners; but a dodger in a suit, with a diploma and a fake smile; never !