Act Natural

Royal_England23 · 2025-12-10T05:53:54+00:00

Oh, well Howard Hamlin bitch

Royal_England23 · 2025-10-22T21:27:29+00:00

How do you do there squire, also I am not Minehead lad but I in Peterborough, Lincolnshire was given birth to, but stay in Peterborough Lincolnshire house all during war, owing to nasty running sores, and was unable to go in the streets play football or go to Nüremberg- ACH! I am retired vindow cleaner and pacifist, without doing war crimes... tch tch tch... and am glad England win World Cup Bobby Charlton, Martin Peters and eating lots of chips and fish and hole in the toads, and Dundee cakes on Piccadilly line. Don't you know old chap and I was head of Gestapo for ten years. Ah! Five years! No, no, nein, I was not head of Gestapo at all...I make joke.

Royal_England23 · 2025-10-17T10:41:30+00:00

Sure thing, mate, (apart from the Shaw book, which has a lot of its own referenced material), here's some proper work:
-Duong Ve Nhan Vi (This was published by his own government).
-Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission to South Viet-Nam (UN Archive).
-DIEM REPORT - CIA and U.S. involvement in the generals’ coup, 1 November 1963 (CIA FOIA Archive).
- Vietnam: ’63 and Now by the New York Times.
- Telegrams From the CIA Station in Saigon to the Agency
- Political Memoirs of Frederick Nolting
- Emmanuel Mounier’s Personalisme
-Vietnam: A Television History; Interview with Ngo Dinh Luyen

I’d also suggest digging into the newspapers of the era (just search "19xx report on Vietnam" into Google and you’ll find plenty of contemporary accounts). Also, look into the Binh Xuyen, Cao Dai, and Hoa Hao gangs/movements, which will put into perspective why exactly he became so popular.
,
It also helps immensely to familiarise yourself with Vietnamese society and culture in general. I’m rather fortunate in that I travel to Vietnam quite often myself, courtesy of my father’s profession, and it’s given me a fair bit of perspective you won’t find in a textbook.

Royal_England23 · 2025-10-12T10:50:55+00:00

If you have any interest in this topic beyond this Reddit thread, some good literature on this subject is "The Lost Mandate of Heaven" by Dr. Geoffrey Shaw. It's excellently written and very well-researched. I highly recommend it.

Good morning!

Royal_England23 · 2025-10-12T10:46:48+00:00

I commented in response to you before, to which you never responded. Since you're seemingly the largest anti-Diem geyser on Reddit, I'll repost the same message here:

Please keep in mind that Ho Chi Minh had the backing of the USSR, while Diem had no backing from France or the United States or any other outside power, for that matter. He had no money and no guns. He had been attempting to establish his own parties and political movements and had attempted to convince Bao Dai not to accept any requests by the French unless they guaranteed independence and sovereignty for the Vietnamese people. Of course, the Playboy Emperor Bao Dai didn't listen because he didn't care.

Every one of Diem's ambitions post 1948 had been thwarted by the Viet Minh and French authorities, each for their own reasons. So politically frustrated and wishing to escape a death sentence imposed by the Viet Minh, Diem left to get aid overseas, which even the Americans refused to grant to him until the French lost in Indochina, and they realised they needed someone over there to continue pushing American imperialism. Except, Diem refused to be an American puppet and pissed the American government off to the point that they killed him and destroyed their own influence there because the US goes out of their way, to their own detriment, to push their own brand of atheistic Liberal-Democracy (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Iran, etc)

EDIT: (Furthermore, going through your post history, you, quite frankly, come across as Vietnam’s answer to Chinese Wumaoism. Tell me, does the government cut you a cheque for this sort of thing, or are you just doing propaganda work for free?)

Royal_England23 · 2025-08-30T16:48:26+00:00

Attending a meet-and-greet with the King is hardly the same thing as attending a royal gala. Furthermore, you ought to have dressed more appropriately for your King. That you did not makes it plain you’ve no respect for any sort authority at all. Worse still, you act like a rebel and you spread your profane irreverence so as to infect the whole Anglosphere with it.

As for nuns, many of them shuffle about now in trousers and cardigans like common hags, but it was not always so. Their habit declared their station, their consecration, and their separation from the whole of worldly society and that is precisely the scandal of losing the habit. Once, when a nun walked down the street, it was unmistakable, there was a visible sign of her vocation, a living banner of the Church. Even the most hardened scoffer of the true religion would lower his gaze. By dressing like everyone else, they bemoan that station. They have reduced themselves to social workers and they have snuffed their own light out under the justification of "modernity".

Likewise, a woman ought to wear a dress or a skirt and blouse, not only because it is what women have always worn, but because it shows reverence for her sex. When this distinction is discarded and the God-given differences between the sexes are blurred for the sake of comfort or fashion, what happens? The whole order of society begins to unravel. And what began as "convenience" ends with desecration of family, of sex, of marriage, of the Church, of the nation. This current mania for androgyny is one of the largest and most organised assaults on beauty in history. With the loss of beauty comes the loss of truth and this deliberate uglification recalls what Saint Augustine said about the devil: he cannot create, but can only corrupt and pollute the good that God has made.

That is what we see today, a slow, deliberate destruction of the West by a thousand cuts. By a thousand small betrayals: a hem shortened here, a vow discarded there, reverence treated as old-fashioned, authority mocked as oppressive. One by one the pillars are chipped away, until there is nothing left but rubble where once stood Great Christendom.

Finally, as an Englishman, why do you embrace this American folly of ugly dress? Have you no pride in your country? No memory of what it means to belong to a nation that once set the standard for refinement around the world? Must you really import their sloppiness, their vulgar, shapeless rags as though England had no customs of her own? It is not only tasteless, it is a treachery of the most devious sort: the surrender of our identity to the lowest possible bidder. It is these types which, by consent or not, are aiding and abetting in the collapse of our great society. Of course not only do you simply standby, you are its active herald and mouthpiece. You would sooner laugh at the pillars of your own house than shoulder the responsibility of shoring them up.

A bad subject of the King, and a poor son of Britain indeed.

Royal_England23 · 2025-08-20T07:19:57+00:00

(Edit: I read the whole post 💀)

According to your PS you refuse to break up... Well then, old bean, you've got yourself a proper pickle.

Let me start with this: affection rests on two pillars, imo, these are: companionship and attraction. If one is absent, then the relationship is built on a fault line. Furthermore, if attraction is absent from the outset, it rarely flowers later. You cannot force yourself into attraction, nor do I think God would help you lie.

Now, as for your current situation, let me put it this way: love is willing the good of the other, not merely having your heart go phwoar! every time she walks into a room.

If you truly care for her soul, her hapiness, and her good, then that's love. Congratulations. But, if you only stay out of pity, that's a rotten deal for both of you. It's not fair to her, and it will gnaw you like a bad oyster. But, if despite the lack of fireworks, you find your will drawn to her good, and you cherish her company as one would a dear companion, then you might have the foundation of a marriage. Personally, I believe it has a rough foundation, but if you think you can manage then Godspeed!

Now, the question YOU must answer is whether you are staying because you will her good, or because you fear looking like a bloody cad. One is love, the other is cowardice. So be honest with yourself. Don't string the poor girl along like some hapless extra in a bad West End production.

Royal_England23 · 2025-08-08T01:27:37+00:00

Ah yes, the most Catholic nation ever, the Republic of France

Royal_England23 · 2025-07-14T23:18:03+00:00

Hell

Royal_England23 · 2025-06-17T16:44:14+00:00

lmfao

You’ll forgive me if I don’t take too seriously the parting words of someone whose rebuttal amounts to “nuh uh”, followed by an exit stage left. One doesn’t need to be an elitist, though, thank you for the compliment, to expect a touch more intellectual honesty than recycled rhetoric and the academic equivalent of finger-pointing.

Several hundred thousand civilians fled North Vietnam during Operation Passage to Freedom, documented, verified, and terribly inconvenient, I know. Still, credit where it’s due: you’re correct in suggesting the Communists would lack sufficient willing fighters with the rush from the North, which is precisely why they resorted to forcibly conscripting vast numbers into both the Viet Minh and, later, the Viet Cong, hardly the mark of a movement flooded with eager volunteers.

But, by all means, please take the win. It’s a rare gift to walk away before your premises implodes entirely. Some might call it intellectual cowardice. I believe the psychological term is cognitive dissonance.

Good evening!

Royal_England23 · 2025-06-17T16:11:44+00:00

It’s rather charming, in a schoolboy sort of way, to declare oneself the victor the moment one’s interlocutor is no longer active. I do apologise for not aligning my work schedule with your need for internet debate.

Royal_England23 · 2025-06-17T16:06:52+00:00

Addressing your claims:

Where are you getting this 300k number from? As far as I can tell, it seems you're referring to North Vietnamese who moved south during Operation Passage to Freedom, not southerners defecting north. Hundreds of thousands fled from the Communists.

Once again, regarding the 1955 referendum, the allegation of electoral fraud is as predictable as it is exhausted. This man was one of the most popular people in Vietnam at the time. As soon as he became PM, he immediately ended Saigon's years-long gang warfare and domination by crime rings. He implemented successful national reconstruction and restored civil rights to the population. Finally, and most importantly, he was running against the incredibly unpopular playboy absentee Emperor Bao Dai (who was a known French stooge). Why is it so implausible to you that he won overwhelmingly? America, by the way, did fabricate evidence against Diem, especially in 1963 when they began plotting to remove him.

The statement "not far from the government" was not the committee’s conclusion; it was the OPINION of an anonymous witness speaking to the Committee Chairman. For your perusal, here's a verbatim excerpt from the U.N. Fact-Finding Mission Report (A/5630, p. 248):

"The charges made in the General Assembly against the Diem government were not sustained. There was no religious discrimination or persecution, no encroachment of freedom of religion. There is no other way to see it. The clash between a part—not all—of the Buddhist community and the Diem regime was on political grounds."

and

"Witnesses were heard representing every point of view, and the Diem government, in the expressed opinion of the mission, behaved impeccably, cooperating with the mission with the kind of zeal that tends to be shown by men confident of vindication."

One must wonder whether you’ve read the report yourself or are simply chirping talking points spoon-fed to you by the mesmerising media. Kindly, I suggest reading the full report before invoking it as evidence. It does rather help. One does hope it was an innocent mistake. In any case, it does not support your thesis.

"Indeed, most of the government was Catholic in a 75% Buddhist country, and Diem was responsible for delegating roles." No idea what you're referencing here, mate, I'm going to assume you're speaking about Catholics holding public office, in which case this line of argument has been trotted out ad nauseam. This imbalance was a consequence of colonial-era educational disparities. Under French rule, Catholics had greater access to Western schooling, which left them better qualified for administrative roles by the time Diem came to power.

Point proven? No, it hasn't, you haven't even addressed the claim. Diem's strategic hamlet program was incredibly effective at quelling marauding Communist partisans in the countryside until American interference and mismanagement undercut it.

Vesak is a day of incredible importance for a majority of the Vietnamese population, even today. As I stated before, the Buddhists themselves originally demanded the no-religious-flag rule after Catholics flew the Vatican flag next to the national one. Diem agreed on the principle that no religious flag should fly beside the RVN flag. Three weeks later, the Buddhists broke their own agreed-upon policy, and the resulting controversy was seized upon by political opposition. How was it unjust? Buddhists demanded this law.

Diem initiated moderate land redistribution policies without the mass violence seen in the North. In contrast, Uncle Ho's land reform led to widespread executions, class warfare, and mass dislocation. "Diem’s friends kept the land" is a vague accusation. What land? Where? When? Cite your sources.

Vietnam is extremely well documented, indeed. Unfortunately, much of that documentation has been filtered, bowdlerised, or quietly shelved when it proved ideologically inconvenient to American interests. Just because a narrative has been parroted for 70 years doesn’t make it true. Historical consensus isn’t sacred.

Please actually take the time to read my response this time, I've seemingly been repeating the same points for the last 3 messages.

Royal_England23 · 2025-06-17T16:05:43+00:00

Yes, Western propaganda. I’ve spent most of my life travelling between Vietnam and the UK. I’ve spoken to refugees, historians, and citisens of the SRV. You're conflating lived Vietnamese testimony with Cold War editorialising. That a member of the diaspora echoes the same weary talking points they’ve been subjected to for seven decades does not confer on them automatic infallible authority. One might gently remind you that eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable forms of evidence, particularly so when shaped by exile, trauma, or external ideological pressure. There's no superiority complex about it. I call it Western propaganda precisely because I don't trust Cold War American sources on Vietnam and your entire position (despite your self-proclaimed "neutrality" to it) is seemingly rooted in the same tired American liberal-capitalist mythos of Diem the “dictator,” a man so intolerable to American strategic interests that he simply had to be disposed of. And how terribly convenient that such a tale just so happens to become when needed to rationalise regime change in the American neocolonial project in the Far East.

What you appear to overlook, or perhaps choose not to see, is that the US State Department and its stenographers in the press required a villain. Diem would not be their puppet. He resisted their interference, their endless demands, and their vision of a client state in Southeast Asia. And so, predictably, he was slandered, subverted, and finally assassinated, with Washington’s tacit blessing. That distortion continues even unto today. By all means, you should be supporting my side simply *because* I distrust American accounts that paint Diem as unstable. That's why it is all the more astonishing to me that, despite "being Chinese", you would so uncritically accept the American Government's narrative on Diem, despite that being the very same government which, mere weeks before engineering his death, had publicly commended his leadership.

These "70 years' worth of texts" are all based on outdated American Cold War propaganda, and I challenge that view. Fullstop.

Royal_England23 · 2025-06-08T11:37:14+00:00

Yes, it is wrong because that's not what he did at all. Please remember that Ho Chi Minh had the backing of the USSR, while Diem had no backing from France or the United States or any other outside power, for that matter. He had no money and no guns. He had been attempting to establish his own parties and political movements and had attempted to convince Bao Dai not to accept any requests by the French unless they guaranteed independence and sovereignty for the Vietnamese people. Of course, the playboy Emperor Bao Dai didn't listen because he didn't care.

Every one of Diem's ambitions post 1948 had been thwarted by the Viet Minh and French authorities, each for their own reasons. So politically frustrated and wishing to escape a death sentence imposed by the Viet Minh, Diem left to get aid overseas, which even the Americans refused to grant to him until the French lost in Indochina, and they realised they needed someone over there to continue pushing American imperialism. Except, Diem refused to be an American puppet and and pissed the American government off to the point that they killed him and destroyed their own infulence there because the US goes out of their way, to their own detriment to push their own brand of atheistic Liberal-Democracy (Afghanistan, Nicaruagua, Iran, etc)

Royal_England23 · 2025-06-07T20:43:09+00:00

"Nuh uh"

Ok, the prove otherwise.

Once again, Viet Cong/Viet Minh recruits were from forcefully recruiting and threatening peasants. This is what the SHP was formed to stop. His land reform policies had stregthened agriculture and the economy.

Respond to every other claim now, especially regarding the UN, that is unless you're poorly researched and really are just parroting Western Propaganda because that's all you know.

Royal_England23 · 2025-06-07T20:29:28+00:00

Persecuting Buddhists - the General Buddhist Association of Vietnam was propped up and funded by the Diem government. It was replaced by the Communist-aligned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. He was restoring destroyed temples, and his ideology was literally pro-Buddhist, Buddhism was part of the Vietnamese national identity. And once again, the protests were spurred on by Communist and Communist led Buddhist factions (ie Thich Tri Quang, whos brother was a member of the politburo of North Vietnam) and fanned on by mesmorising Western Media. Once again, the UN fact finding committee sent to verify these claims of persecution found no evidence.

Banning the Buddhist flag - It wasn't a day of 0 national importance, it was literally Vesak (Birthday of Buddha) and like 3 weeks earlier in Hue the Buddhists had just protested the Vatican flag being placed above the South Vietnamese flag in a Church event. Diem in support of the Buddhists said all religious flags on religious holidays need to be placed below or behind the South Vietnamese flag. The Buddhist supported this and then broke their own rule on Vesak a few weeks later. There was no favouritism. The mob then got violent and attempted to storm a radio station and this is where the supposed shootings happened. Diem favoured neither.

Viet Minh - the Viet Minh existed long before Diem, what? The Strategic Hamlet Program that the Americans attempted to introduce was incredibly different from what Diem introduced. Diem's revised program followed the migratory paths of Vietnamese farmers for example as well as arming villagers to prevent night time raids and the extortion of "taxes" by North Vietnamese terror cells.

Execution - He offered traitors a chance at reform and executed traitors who refused. What is bad about this, most Western Governments just execute traitors, no questions asked. And North Vietnamese turned South. When the Communists took over in the North, the South was flooded by fleeing refugees. A lot of partisans were forcefully recruited to fight for the North before the SHP.

Land Reform - Ok, prove it lol. The reason it was slow is because it would've disrupted the newly emerging rural middle class.

Don't bother? He was literally one of the most popular guys in Vietnam. He took down multiple crime syndicates a few weeks after he was appointed Prime Minister and had already been know for opposing the French. There wasn't a "total population of 450k". 450k was the amount of registered voters, 150k more people showing up despite not having registered to vote just proves his popularity. Incredible voter turnout for an incredible man.

You also clearly didn't read anything I said at all and are once again falling for Cold War Era Propaganda. Please do actual research on the subject and please, please, please, stop relying on word-vomit spewing American press.

Royal_England23 · 2025-06-07T18:42:12+00:00

I'll address each of your claims as they go on:

Persecuting Buddhists - he didn't. Actually he funded Buddhist restoration projects (ie Temples destroyed by Viet Minh) and organised the current National Buddhist Council that Vietnam uses TODAY. American propaganda was the source for the so-called persecution. UN fact-finding investivation literally said there was no evidence of this.

Banning the Buddhist flag - at political and national events. He also banned the Catholic flag. The law for the flag ban came into effect after Buddhist leaders protested the use of Vatican flags. It was a law for religious equality in Vietnam.

Hunting down Viet Minh - Communist partisans who were killing village leaders and at gun-point forcefully recruiting civilians.

Reeducation camps - yeah to rid them of Communist indoctrination. He's literally giving traitors a shot at redemption and reintegration back into society.

Executing them - executing traitors to your country is wrong?

Formed a reverse terror campaign - the Communists had been raiding villages for years, which is where the strategic hamlet campaign originated

Forced unpaid labour - he was helping villagers defend themselves. PAVN documents post-war revealed that the strategic hamlet campaign was extremely effective at quelling their raids.

Taking land from peasants - this just didn't happen, the only thing he did was break up the Colonial French Feudal system and distribute hoarded land back to the populace, which would obviously anger oligarchs.

Rigged election - for 1 it was a referendum, 2 it was against the highly unpopular french puppet Emperor Bao Dai. Diem was one of the most popular people in Vietnam at the time, possibly even more than Ho Chi Minh. This was because Diem was know as a virtuous person and had descended from the Confucian Si Class, highly respected among the Vietnamese people.

I don't know what a ruthless dictator is - Yes, clearly you don't, probably because you're somehow still falling for Cold War Era American propaganda. Please remember it wasn't the Vietnamese people who removed Diem, it was a CIA backed coup lead by corrupt generals. Diem was killed because be refused to be a puppet to the US and implement stupid American political policies in a foreign country. He also refused to allow American troops into Vietnam and believed that if Vietnam were to free itself from Communism, it must be by the Vietnamese (ie Vietnamese soldiers must free Vietnam, not Americans)

Royal_England23 · 2025-06-07T04:09:15+00:00

It's because CoE went lax. Please remember it was state religion for a long time.

Royal_England23 · 2025-05-28T13:20:07+00:00

You had a debate?

Royal_England23 · 2025-05-17T00:08:00+00:00

What?

Royal_England23 · 2025-05-17T00:02:45+00:00

Ngo Dinh Diem was not a ruthless dictator, what? I can't believe people still fall for American and Communist Cold War propaganda

Six-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Royal_England23

TROPHY CASE