"Combating Hate in Europe" Forum

From left to right: Fred Hiatt, Washington Post moderator, Peter Wettig, German Ambassador, Gerard Araud, French Ambassador, and David O'Sullivan, EU Ambassador to U.S. Photo: Ileana Johnson 2016

Despite the snowy conditions in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum held a program on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, January 27, 2016 on the topic of “Combating Hate in Europe.” http://www.ushmm.org/online/watch/index.html

In advertising the forum, the museum explained the importance of such a program.
“Around the world, antisemitism, religious persecution, and violent extremism are on the rise, and each threatens the stability and freedoms that democratic leaders are working to preserve.”

The Museum’s intent was to examine how the lessons of the Holocaust could help “combat extremism and also stand up to antisemitism and violence against religious minorities.”

Ambassadors were to address what can be done to confront these challenges today, “what their governments are doing and still need to do to educate young people, counter hate speech, and create economic opportunity while also maintaining secure borders and offering safe harbor to refugees.”

Speakers included Gérard Araud, Ambassador of France to the United States, David O'Sullivan, Ambassador of the European Union to the United States, and Peter Wittig, Ambassador of Germany to the United States. Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor at the Washington Post was the moderator.

Dr. Alfred Munzer

The special unannounced guest and speaker was a Holocaust survivor, Dr. Alfred Münzer.

In her opening remarks, the museum representative described the day as a “day for education and reflection,” keeping in mind the social unrest in Europe, the fear on the ground, the resentment, xenophobia, hate speech, vicious, sexual attacks, and the treacherous slide into the worst extremism, the rise of terror groups and of government leaders who engage in hate speech. She described the rise of radical groups in Poland, “which are bolder and stronger than ever,” and the “anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-NATO, anti-Europe feelings, “the unbridled threats and actions against minorities; the anti-s have taken over the global discourse.”

Fred Hiatt remarked that America spoke with “moral arrogance” about Europe but “nobody is in a position to lecture anybody else when we are talking about these topics.” He mentioned how dismayed many were at the level of intolerance in parts of our presidential debates, “the ease with which other human beings were dehumanized.”

Peter Wettig explained that his country, Germany, has a moral responsibility to never forget the Holocaust, and that shapes its foreign policy, especially towards Israel. Anti-Semitism is not tolerated – “my country has strict laws on incitement, on hate speech, and on Holocaust denial which are punishable under the law, under the full force of the law.”

Those who decide what constitutes hate speech are lawyers and judges, an obviously subjective decision. One of the panelists explained that, in order to be hate speech, it must “incite” violence. I thought violence in general is caused by hate, an “intense and passionate dislike” of something or someone, by revenge, or insanity.

What is then “hate speech” as determined by progressive scholars. There is a legal and a dictionary definition.

“In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.”

In the dictionary, it is “speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

By this definition, most Democrats should be fined for “hate speech” and inciting riots and violence. But we do have freedom of speech, particularly unpleasant and offensive speech.

The audience expected the forum to address “the growing concern of most of Europe and many here in this country of the virulent spread of hatred meted out by the growing Muslim population in their host countries.” Instead, “the general position taken was that the rest of us aren’t tolerant enough of their customs and religious ideas.”

According to Chriss Rainey, “the discussion was presented in a panel of like-minded socialists who represented their socialist governments. I don’t think anyone has the answers yet for the Muslim infiltration of Europe and the western world, but to think we can do nothing but increase tolerance is irrational.”

Rainey continued, “Did it ever occur to anyone that the repeated mention of Republican candidates running for office, Trump in particular, was offensive and bordering on hate speech? Or is it only acceptable to speak your mind and express your sincere beliefs if you are Democrat or a socialist?”

The German ambassador Wittig expressed his country’s position of respect for Jewish groups, for Israel’s right to exist, and his country’s stance of intolerance towards any form of anti-Semitism. He almost foolishly insisted that anti-Semitism, “if it existed, was a German problem and not a threat from the million Muslims they have invited and allowed into the country.”

An interesting word used by several people on the panel raised my radar, “stakeholders,” a word that points to the one world governance socialist-speak coming from the United Nations.

Ambassador Gerard Araud focused his remarks on the French secularist society which “has just opened its doors to a very religious body of immigrants who do not share a common morality with host countries.” Reeducating and training the immigrants to the French way of life was presented in such a positive light as if it was remotely possible. Never mind the two massacres in Paris in 2015; that must have been just an exception to the peacefulness and good intent of the new comers to build a progressive life in France.

Chriss Rainey believes that “Araud’s remarks reflect an attitude that they don’t like religion because it puts barriers on human progress. They have ideas of right and wrong and anyone will be trained in the proper conduct of a citizen. The French expect to do this not through any religious body, which has been the source of morality for centuries, but from within state run schools that are set up to mold the next generation, outside the loving eye of home and family. But then, how could it be otherwise since they have basically destroyed the family already and the only thing left to train children—what few of them there are, is the state.”

Ambassador David O’Sullivan, representing EU, a house of cards threatened by the possible exit of Greece and U.K., explained his organization’s interest in controlling the 28 member-states to make sure they stay in line and preserve the EU. To succeed, EU bureaucrats must make sure any nationalist idea is rejected as dangerous, racist, hateful, xenophobic, backwards, and simple-minded. Anyone who opposes global government control is uneducated.

O’Sullivan expressed his disdain for Donald Trump, a presidential candidate who loves his country and speaks openly about protecting Americans’ rights to preserve their way of life. Ambassador O’Sullivan added that he had faith in the American voters to do the right thing, meaning, to vote for some other candidate who shares his progressive, globalist control views.

During the panel discussion and Q&A, the bashing of Donald Trump was almost a lait-motif. Trump voters were derided as “nativists,” “lower class” and “uneducated” for considering a vote for such a persona-non-grata whom the Labor Party in the U.K. contemplated banning. The two remaining ambassadors expressed their faith in the American voters that they would do the right thing and vote as the elites and the media desire.

As Chriss Rainey so aptly put it, “Could it be that the remarks about our conservative candidates that we heard mentioned again and again, are merely a reflection of their own fear of a growing conservative movement in Europe?”

After the conclusion of the panel discussion and Q & A, a Dutch survivor of the Holocaust, Dr. Alfred Münzer, made brief remarks about how he survived “the fury of anti-Semitism that had engulfed Europe,” having been hidden and protected “by a Dutch family and their Muslim housekeeper.” But his older sisters, 6 and 8 years old, did not survive. They were turned in to the authorities and taken to Auschwitz. “The father of a Catholic family whose wife had taken them in did not like Jewish children.” Sadly, he explained, the murder of six million Jews did not end the anti-Semitism that is very much alive today.

I was surprised that not once the real culprits of anti-Semitism and perpetrators of heinous crimes today were not mentioned. Yet every panelist and the moderator repeated ad nauseam the idea that somehow, conservatives and nationalists in Europe and around the globe who disagree with progressive goals and ideals are “far right loons” who deserve derision, contempt, and legal punishment of hate crimes.  

Freedom of speech must fall under progressive censorship law; eager judges should eliminate the right to speak and think which is divergent from the ruling elites. Working hand in glove with social media, especially Facebook, these European bureaucrats and Democrats want to nip in the bud any resistance against their speech dictates.

Unlike Europe, which is a basket case of linguistic Tower of Babel, of broke socialist states thanks to their open borders, multi-culturalism and diversity at all costs, most Americans like their borders, their sovereignty, and their culture, and would like to keep it this way.

Americans do not want to lose their national identity to hostile, invading cultures that do not wish to assimilate but desire to change the demographics of the host country, its history, and replace the local customs and religions with Islam. It seems that the ruling progressives and invading Islamists, who rape and pillage across Europe, make strange bed fellows. The media and the socialist authorities are on high alert to hide the chaos.

The panelists spent more time protecting minorities that actually engage in hate speech, incitement, and murder, while condemning the “hate speech” coming from the “far right” fringe and those so intolerant and disagreeable with the progressive open border, destroy western civilization agenda.

No mention was made of all the violence, chaos, and rapes committed by the military age Muslim refugees harbored in ever-increasing numbers and welcomed with open arms by EU leaders determined to change the arrogant and intolerant face and demographics of our western civilization.

Unfortunately, thanks to progressive tyrants, career politicians in Washington who only represent the interests of their capitalist cronies, billionaires, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) lobbying around the world with coffers full of grant money, the fix is in for European style global socialism.

Further reading sources cited by the Holocaust Museum:

*Antisemitism in Germany. Ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that antisemitism is "more widespread than we imagine." http://www.jta.org/2016/01/24/news-opinion/world/merkel-anti-semitism-in-germany-more-widespread-than-we-can-imagine?utm_source=Newsletter+subscribers&utm_campaign=e4d5d21674-Daily_Briefing_1_25_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2dce5bc6f8-e4d5d21674-25299385

*Extremism in Poland. Our opening speaker and USHMM Council member, Amy Kaslow recently reported on the growth of nationalist movements in Eastern Europe.
http://fortune.com/author/amy-kaslow/

*Holocaust Remembrance events in Paris. To mark the global Day of Remembrance, the Museum and UNESCO Paris will co-host a series of events and open an important exhibition on propaganda, called State of Deception.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/oppose-new-propaganda-of-hatred-by-irina-bokova-and-sara-bloomfield-2016-01

 

If You Agree with Me, Freedom of Speech is Free

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

Having made tremendous progress throughout history, advancing, protecting, and promoting freedom of speech, we find ourselves at a threshold when book burnings, forbidden free expression of ideas, and printing for the elite consumption, not the masses, do not seem like such a thing of the past, even though we have the Internet for now.

Free speech must now be interpreted and filtered through the warped minds of the progressive academia, Hollywood, and the main stream media who have learned absolutely nothing from the atrocities of history.

Free speech by progressives is government-controlled speech that labels dissenting ideas as hate speech, talk which is not protected, resulting in banning from a country, like Michael Savage, a school, a meeting, a university, or a job.

Your formerly free speech is now relegated to a far corner of a university, “free speech zone,” and subject to violent liberal protests. You are the person who provoked them and thus must be banned. Pamela Geller found herself attacked for criticizing radical Islam. She deserved what she got because she provoked them, said liberals.

Liberals despise talk radio as offensive unless their progressive denizens own and run the show. They promote political correctness because it is suppression of speech and that is the end-goal. Michael Savage asked very pointedly on his May 6, 2015 show, “Do you want self-suppression to empower evil?”

A cartoon is repugnant and provocative, liberals say.  But it is free speech to stomp and burn the American flag; the woman, who respects our Stars and Stripes, the freedom it stands for, tries to save it and put out the flames, and is promptly and unceremoniously arrested.

There is no excuse for violence if you are provoked. Martin Luther King did not provoke violence during his march. Christians are not violent when liberals disgustingly display Jesus in an exhibit floating in urine, or when Hollywood creates characters that urinate on the crucified Jesus. Nobody attacks filthy rappers or comedians because we are civilized and understand that offensive speech is protected. We just change the channel and refuse to watch or buy their filth advertised as music, art, or theater.

But we are allowing the killing of free speech for the silent majority. We allow the indoctrination of our children into abhorrent ideas spewed from the halls of academia and we pay higher and higher tuitions to such universities.
 

Boston University incoming Assistant Professor of Sociology and African-American Studies, Saida Grundy, has made several anti-Whites comments via Tweeter such as “White masculinity isn’t the problem for America’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for America’s colleges.” The school responded that the professor is practicing her freedom of speech. Really? How many white people have lost their jobs for lesser comments deemed as hate speech or unacceptable?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/9/saida-grundy-boston-university-professor-white-mal/

Across the pond, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown exercises her freedom of speech, “I don’t like white men, I want them to be a lost species,” while conservative talk show host Michael Savage is still banned from Britain. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/24/yasmin-alibhai-brown-i-don-t-like-white-men-i-want-them-to-be-a-lost-species/

Liberals view free speech as progressive ideas which are indisputable and non-debatable. Their version of science and of reality is settled. If you object, reject, and try to debate the progressive, regressive, and oppressive minority in control with reason and fact, you are a hate monger, an Islamophobe, a homophobe, a terrorist, a traitor, and a bigot. Progressives say that we should all be capitulators to leftist Marxist ideology and Leninist indoctrination, worshippers of global warming, and appeasers to radical Islam.

We allow indoctrination into Islam in our schools (wearing hijab for a day, covering heads during field trips to mosques, being Muslim for a day, covering our cherished Christian symbols in order to appease uncomfortable Islamists). We allow the promotion of mob justice by the very elected officials who are supposed to maintain law and order.

Having been the victim of abject and blatant discrimination in the halls of academia during my college years and teaching career, I have to wonder, how many America-loving, outstanding college teachers and straight A students were passed up during the application process for employment or admission to a university so that America-hating affirmative action quotas were fulfilled?
Ileana Johnson 2015

 

 

The American Oligarchy

We are fundamentally changing, it’s been coming for decades but it is more noticeable now because we have Internet, wireless devices, pocket size encyclopedias encapsulating libraries around the world, and instant access to real news around the globe.

We see how the main stream media has become the spokesperson for the ruling elites, corruption rules and day, and education is melting in the flames of common core.  

We are no longer a Constitutional Republic because we failed to keep it. We are a benign oligarchy composed of same party rule of the few oligarchs, no matter how we vote at the polls. The oligarchs do as they please.

Oligarchy is a “form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; it is government by the few.” Nations ruled by oligarchies do not fare well, whether they are benign oligarchies or absolute tyrannies.

Newly elected politicians sign worthless pledges to constituents which they immediately break on the first day of Congress, joining those they swore to defeat and corruption is epidemic with all politicians, new or expert octopuses with tentacles strangling the heart of the republic. The oath of office is just a meaningless step to power.

We go about our daily lives; we go to work, shopping, to the movies, to parties, and watch surreal “reality TV” and sports while our country continues to fall apart. Nobody understands the insurmountable debt accumulated by Congress after Congress that is looming over our futures.

We still have food, we are fat thanks to food additives and a sedentary lifestyle, we are lulled into a false sense of security, we have a warm place called home, some have jobs, some have 2-3 part-time jobs, the welfare checks keep rolling in, what is there to worry us?

We are like the declining Roman Empire – America is waning because of the corruption of our leaders which we elect time and time again.

The average American does not really care right now. But the day to day contentment will change during their life time because of millions and millions of illegal aliens brought into the country by this administration. Their children will exist in a third world state riddled with poverty, illiteracy, crime, welfare, shortages, and equal and deplorable penury.

Most people are not feeling the change in their lives, but “fundamental change is in the air” and coming at dizzying speed.

We still have freedom of religion, although some “religions” are catered to more by government laws and regulations, forcing the rest of us to accept a “religion” that is contradictory to our Judeo-Christian values, lest we are sued or killed. Christianity is constantly under attack around the world and at home.

We have to self-censor or pay the penalty of hate-speech. The United Nations wants to codify into law a punishment for anyone who dares to criticize the very violent “religion of peace.”

Theoretically, we still have freedom of speech but, if we exercise it, we are marginalized as loons or phobes, forced to apologize for factual statements, or lose our jobs. In essence, we have lost the freedom of speech guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. We are now fearful to speak publicly, to our neighbors, and even whisper to relatives who have not yet written us off as strange and inimical because we have divergent opinions.

Ask tenured professor Dr. John McAdams of Marquette University about his suspension for exercising his freedom of speech in a blog which criticized an instructor who forbade students to have dissenting opinions in his class because the topic “was settled.” http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/fight-erupts-over-universitys-censorship-of-student-speech/

Speech is free as long as you agree with me. If you advocate for freedom of speech, you are going to be fired or suspended in the very place that prides itself over freedom of speech. But are universities a place where anyone can express their thoughts freely anymore? Especially when they have installed tiny corners called “free speech zones” but you have to ask permission from the university to use it.

We have freedom of the press but the press is run by liberals. We can write our opinions, but can we get them published? After all, most of the publishing houses are owned and staffed by brainwashed progressives.

We have freedom of assembly as long as the city government pressed by progressive agendas approves our petition to assemble and the topic of discussion. Conservative groups are often told no, while illegal immigrants can freely assemble to protest their illegitimacy and law-breaking presence in our country.

What is the goal in bringing into America four million Muslim immigrants per year who are intolerant of infidels and of their freedom of speech, as evidenced in the most recent massacre of twelve innocent Parisians who dared practice their trade of free speech through cartoons? The slain policeman who arrived on a bicycle and unarmed, was unable to protect the other eleven victims.

How could this happen in the liberal paradise of France where police has been disarmed and guns prohibited as demanded by the progressive society who believes that an unarmed populace will convince terrorists to give up their weapons. Surely they will respond to reason and mercy. We are all civilized humans, aren’t we?

Fareed Zakaria said on his CNN show, “There is within the world of Islam many, many pockets, many groups that really have a great deal of difficulty with the modern world, and particularly with the open Western freedom of speech loving, freedom of expression loving world.  The grievance, the grievance is that they feel they live in a world not of their making, a world of the west's making.” Well, in that case, let’s remake the world in the intolerant image of Islam and terrorism will go away. If they hate our world so much, why are they immigrating in droves to the west? http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/01/09/left_focuses_on_non_existent_islamophobia_to_smear_conservatives

Christiane Amanpour, referring to the Paris massacre, said, “One of the things that we're living right now is a very ugly and unseemly rise yet again of Islamophobia, and this is very worrying.  All these governments now are gonna be watching to see how the far right, which made huge gains in the last local elections in Europe a few months ago, National Frontier, UKIP in England, you know, the groups in Belgium and Germany and elsewhere, which are mobilizing big anti-Islamic demonstrations, how this is gonna play into this very ugly political situation.” http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/01/09/left_focuses_on_non_existent_islamophobia_to_smear_conservatives

What “ugly political situation?” Twelve innocent individuals, doing their jobs and exercising their right to free speech in the civilized world, have been slaughtered by the adherents to Islam. Can anyone name contributions to civilization that Islam has made since the 11^th century other than violence, destruction, and death?

France24 reports that fifty world leaders have gathered in Paris to attend the Anti-Terrorism Rally on Sunday, January 11, 2015. http://www.france24.com/en/20150110-paris-rally-charlie-hebdo-sunday-leaders/ Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority among them, “are marching in solidarity against radical Islam,” said LTC Ralph Peters on Fox and Friends Weekend.

Kirk Lippold, Commander of USS Cole, wonders on his Facebook page why the United States is not represented in this massive rally against terrorism. “This is an embarrassment for the United States and speaks volumes about this Administration's commitment to defeating radical Islam and the terrorists who kill innocent civilians.” https://www.facebook.com/kirk.lippold.9/posts/10205683838880415?notif_t=close_friend_activity

We are in the phase of a “soft, benevolent dictatorship,” some call it “despotic oligarchy,” shaping what we do, what we say, what we think, what we eat, what we drink, what medicines we take, what doctors we see, but people are generally blind so far to this new phase of reshaping America away from the “evil” capitalist empire that has brought prosperity and development to the entire world.

The moral decline of America is driving more nails into its coffin because everything deviant is now protected and promoted by law and the medical field is encouraging and paying for any physical changes desired.

Rome did not fall in one day, it took a long time for its collapse and it split into two empires, the Western and the Eastern. The Western Empire fell quickly in 476 A.D. to the barbarian hordes that wanted the Roman lifestyle but were unwilling to assimilate.

Political corruption, a mercenary army disloyal to Rome, unchecked immigration,  waves of Visigoths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Franks, Ostrogoths, and Lombards who took turns damaging the Empire, an inflationary economy, decreased agricultural production, trade deficit, decadence, piracy, and lead poisoning were other variables that contributed to the fall of Rome. The Eastern Empire flourished for another 1,000 years as Byzantium.

How long is the American Empire going to survive under a soft, benign oligarchy?

 

 

 

Communism Then and Now

“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” – Chris Hedges

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the way of achieving the same ultimate goal: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism by voting. It’s the same difference between murder and suicide.”  - Ayn Rand

The grocery store from the communist era is still standing.
Photo credit: Ileana Johnson 2012

A pamphlet published by Alfred G. Meyer at Harvard in 1953, and designed to teach young people about the subversion and evils of communism, revealed that “communists in disguise have slipped into influential places in our country.” At that time, the movement was modest, with little influence, and a membership of 35,000 people, about 1/50 of one percent of the population. At its membership height, there were around 200,000 communists in the U.S. It is hard to estimate a number today, however, judging by those who are constantly in the limelight and voting for communist policies, the numbers are growing.

Membership and influence are growing because the New York based Communist Party USA’s rhetoric appeals to the lowest denominator, to those who are already on welfare, illegal aliens, and permanent residents coming from third world dictatorships, and union members who are controlled by communist leaders. A constant and highly successful propaganda is waged by the Democrat Party and progressive elites, using the communist slogans of “hope and change,” “forward,” “social justice,” “environmental justice,” “white-privilege,” and “income inequality.”

Communists appear so successful because Americans have a short collective memory, short attention span, and know, thanks to a socialist academia, very little of their own non-revisionist history, and even less world history. College graduates are hard pressed to answer correctly basic questions about history, geography, and government. Yet they know what the latest Hollywood celebrity ate for supper yesterday. The MSM, academia, and Hollywood are the main propaganda arm of mass indoctrination, comprised of “useful idiots,” a term coined and used by Stalin.

Saul Alinsky described in his book, Rules for Radicals, the eight levels of control necessary to create a socialist regime. Healthcare, welfare (food, housing, income), and education must be controlled by the state. Religion must be made irrelevant by removing it from government and schools.  Guns must be confiscated in order to create a police state. Create as much poverty as possible. Poor people are easier to control. Explode national debt to unsustainable levels by out of control spending fueled by new and suffocating taxes that create more poverty. Use escalating class warfare rhetoric to fuel the division between “rich” and “poor,” causing discontent. Malcontent would then drive the welfare poor to rebel against the “greedy rich” who “do not pay their fair share,” and to demand that they be taxed more.

How did people get ahead under the former communist Soviet-ruled Iron Curtain?

They became members of the communist party and their sympathizers, and displayed their loyalty by copying and emulating everything Marxists did. They made themselves useful by spying on other people, on their own relatives, on their own immediate families, reporting to the thought and economic police on their activities, and through loyal nepotism.

How did people get ahead in our former Constitutional Republic? Americans excelled through hard work, long hours, study, sacrifices, risk-taking through entrepreneurship, and education.  Now they get ahead through crony capitalism, nepotism, corruption, strict adherence to the Democrat Party platform, race baiting, claiming faux discrimination, invoking the manufactured and non-existent “white privilege,” using oppressed minority claims, lawsuits, socialist and environmentalist brainwashing in public schools, and radicalism wrapped in extreme feminism and homosexual rights.

Karl Marx wrote about capitalism as a conflict between the wealthy factory owners (the capitalists) and the proletariat (workers who had to toil for the capitalist in order to survive). Marx, a leech himself, wrote that capitalists took advantage of the proletariat. He attempted to explain that “as long as capitalism existed, the misery of mankind would grow greater.”  To solve this problem, “workers would rise and start a revolution that would bring comfort and control over their lives and jobs.” We know this took place across the former Soviet-led communist countries with disastrous results – the workers became much poorer, more miserable, more oppressed, living in a totalitarian regime, while their communist handlers became richer by stealing “communal property.”

The followers of Marx (a bum supported financially by rich friends) split into two camps: the socialists (those willing to reform capitalism) and the communists (those willing to destroy capitalism). The “soft Marxists,” called in Russia “Mensheviks,” preached for a slow pace to learning self-governing. The “hard Marxists,” Bolsheviks/communists led by Vladimir Ilich Lenin, believed men were not disciplined enough to grow, they had to be forced into revolution. Lenin is considered the first Soviet dictator, and Joseph Stalin, who came to power after Lenin died, the second dictator.

After bloody struggles such as the Civil War in Russia, 1918-1921, the rebuilding and arguing period, 1921-1928, the first five-year plan, 1928-1932, and unprecedented progress in building a modern industrial empire between 1932-1953, Russia became a country admired by “people in India, Africa, and China.” (Alfred G. Meyer, What You Should Know About Communism, p. 23)

Having lived under socialism/communism, I know from first-hand experience that five-year plans were a joke. We constantly struggled to find basics because not enough finished goods and food were produced to satisfy demand. For example, a Soviet factory that was scheduled to produce 50,000 tractors in 1930, managed to build only 3,000. The factory received the “Order of the Camel” for “breaks in the plan and wastage.”

The important questions about communism are:

1.      Was there equality and democracy under communism?

2.      Did everyone experience the same and equal quality of life and the “the good things of life?”

3.      Was the struggle between classes non-existent?

4.      Were classes abolished forever?

The short answer to all of the above questions is no. The complex answer is that communist countries were ruled by the Communist Party Presidium. There was no middle class, only the proletariat and the ruling communist elite. Everyone worked for equally meager pay (regardless of skill, training, or education) for the government which was staffed only with communist party leaders.

The Five-year Plan was draconian, covered the entire communist nation, and the workers were either not equipped, did not have enough resources, skill, machinery, were wasteful, or not sufficiently trained or paid to meet the outlandish demands. If the plan was not met, the worker’s pay was cut drastically. If waste and fraud were found, the person in charge who did not necessarily commit the crime, went to jail for economic failures of duty. If the worker exceeded the Five-year Plan requirements, large bonuses were given, but the standards were raised, making it impossible to meet them again. To get materials in the attempt to fulfill the plan, people resorted to theft, black market deals, swindles, and bribery, making the Five-year Plan rather “disorderly” and mismanaged.

As a police state, there were three organizations that ruled any communist country: administrators who ran the affairs of the country, the Communist Party who gave directives for national policy and publicity from its centralized position, and the political police who watched over the communist loyalty and compliance of the citizenry.

If you think such a practice of loyalty watch and speech compliance is dead, consider the city of Barcelona, from the state of Catalonia, Spain, who created recently the “Anti-rumor Agency” and certified 436 “anti-rumor” volunteer agents to catch and punish those whose beliefs are not in line with the “consensus,” with “groupthink.” “The agents will patrol the streets, butt into certain conversations, and spread politically correct information.” http://mas-ediciones.e-noticies.es/barcelones/agentes-antirumores-contra-el-racismo-58588.html

“Groupthink” is the “consensus” established and highly publicized through MSM by self-appointed moral know-it-alls, suppressing any evidence that might question the “consensus,” stereotyping, demonizing, and denigrating anyone with a divergent opinion or view.

Anyone who questions and disagrees with the global warming/climate change or any other “consensus” is a “denier,” “flat-Earther,” “creationist,” “xenophobe,” “homophobe,” “bigot,” “racist,” or “fascist.” Charles Krauthammer reported in his “Thought Police on Patrol” how 110,000 individuals signed a petition to “his newspaper not to carry any more articles questioning the fact of man-made global warming.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10853279/Sinister-groupthink-powers-the-modern-world.html

Professor Henrick Moeller, researcher in acoustics, was fired by the University of Aalborg, Denmark, for holding the opinion that wind farms are harmful to people living nearby and for arguing that insufficient protective buffer zones were established by authorities. His research dared to contradict the university that “conducts million-dollar research for wind turbine manufacturer Vestas.” http://www.metal-supply.dk/article/view/41295/samarbejde_mellem_vestas_og_aalborg_universitet_fordobles#.U4yJ7IzD_IW

In 1953, the Assistant Director of the Russian Research Center at Harvard University, Alfred G. Meyer, advised Americans how to fight world communism as an existential threat. The first threat was the “powerful war machine.” The second threat was “the possibility that communist propaganda will convert people of the free nations to the Marxist cause.”

Sixty years later it appears that the world communist movement is taking roots in the U.S. quite nicely from within, lured and supported by the constant MSM propaganda machine. (How We Can Fight Communism, chapter VII, p. 42)

Alfred Meyer posed an interesting question in 1953 which rings true today in light of developing “thought police” around the world. “How does the attempt to silence ideas by punishing people who hold them square with the American traditions of civil liberties? How can we remain democratic if any set of ideas is declared illegal?” In the latest developments, patriotic, Christian, pro-American, pro-Constitution ideals, ideas, and our freedom of speech have been attacked under the rubric of “hate speech.” Is it really effective to punish and destroy people who hold ideas and ideals different from yours?

Is it not despicable to prey on people’s “feelings” of poverty, economic inequality and insecurity (caused by the administrations’ economic policies) by promoting the utopia of communism as desirable alternative to the “failed and unjust” capitalism?  

People, who are ignorant and frightened every day by the MSM, buy into communist dogma, slogans, and rhetoric. Illegals are an easy sell because they don’t know anything else but tyranny and are enchanted by the generous welfare that, they think, comes from the ever full government coffers. Minorities who are told every day they have been slighted by prejudice and injustice buy into the deliberately deceptive communist rhetoric as well.

Inequality and injustice cannot be wiped out by destroying one successful economic model and replacing it with a failed economic model just because some charismatic promoter says it will succeed this time because the right people are in charge. At the end of the day, communism is still a form of totalitarianism no matter how you slice it.

Author's note: This article is part of my upcoming book, Communism 2.0

Divergent Opinions No Longer Polite Discourse

Polite debate is no longer the accepted norm in our society. The liberal left is not tolerating divergent opinions, they want them eliminated. Outrageous labels, personal threats, and even violence have escalated during what used to be polite discourse and disagreements of opinion.

We provide evidence that UN Agenda 21 does exist, yet we are “agenders.” We cite the document called Agenda 21, 40 chapters long, and the UN Agenda 21 Constitution called DICED, but that is too much evidence for the globalist crowd to digest. It is easier to attack the messenger.

We have sufficient scientific evidence that global warming is a hoax, it has been debunked many times, yet we are “climate deniers” and “flat-earthers.” We do not deny climate change and the earth is not flat.

Climate has changed constantly since recorded history and before, just ask the dinosaurs. We don’t think the much maligned CO2 is the culprit nor do we believe that we are dealing with a “man-made disaster.” We happen to believe that we are in a period of global cooling, as evidenced by lower overall global temperatures in the last 17 years as recorded by more than 30,000 temperature probes around the earth. Self-labeled progressives can’t let incontrovertible truth get in the way of power, money, and control.

Because we are fiscally conservative and believe in government accountability, we are “right wing nuts.”

Because we think that government control and surveillance violate our Constitutional rights and have gotten out of control, we are “tin foil hatters” and “conspiracy theorists.”

Since we believe that we have been taxed enough and we take to the streets to peacefully protest the excessive taxation which supports permanent welfare recipients and illegal aliens, we are “tea baggers,” a derogatory term which has nothing to do with our belief in moderate taxation or with the fact that 49 percent of Americans pay no income tax.

When we stress and argue that politicians have become Machiavellian opportunists who push amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens who have broken our laws, yet lawmakers think it must be done right away so corporations can hire cheap labor, Democrats gain new voters, and the church new converts, we are “racists” and “xenophobes.”

If we don’t believe Obamacare is the magical solution to health insurance problems, and we see clearly a disaster in the making that will ultimately change our stellar healthcare system into “Castro care,” we are “hate mongers” who don’t want other people to have health care.

If we don’t believe that Sharia Law can “coexist” with our Constitution and our legal system based on Roman law, we are “islamophobes.”

If a white person admits using racially insensitive and insulting words thirty years ago, his/her career is over and they are crucified by the MSM and big business. They become instant “pariahs” or at best “persona-non-grata.” When a black person uses the same racially charged epithets, whether addressed to a white or to a black person, it becomes career enhancement. We even throw in extra accolades and prizes for their role in the moral and verbal degradation of our youth.

If we teach our children how to hunt and kill animals to feed a family, not for sport, we are rednecks “clinging to our guns.” Yet nobody bats an eye when millions of babies are aborted and killed each year, even when born alive, it is a liberal “choice.” I sure am glad my mother did not consider my life in her womb a “choice.”

If we pray, believe in God, and attend church regularly, “we cling to our Bibles” and our religion. Belief in Mother Earth, Gaia, is highly praised, recommended, and indoctrinated in schools and by the PC police. Accommodations are made for other religions, but our soldiers cannot carry a Bible for comfort.

If we believe in traditional family and marriage defined as the union between a man and a woman, we are “homophobes.” We thus need re-educating. We must be bombarded with everything homosexual, LBGT parades, parties, Hollywood movies, sitcoms, Broadway productions, training at work to become more sensitive, classes for children on homosexual love, and workshops on how to cater to a small minority so that everybody really understands what they do behind closed doors.

When we engage in political discourse and our liberal opponents have lost the argument, they turn to anger, shouting, and hurling personally insulting epithets. When the disagreements happen to be outdoors, fights ensue which often do not end well for non-liberals. At best, cars with conservative bumper stickers are keyed from end to end. At worst, windows are smashed, owners are ruffed up, escaping with black eyes and bruised limbs, but alive.

Civility has been replaced by class warfare stoked by politicians and race-baters who make a lucrative living at keeping class division alive and the concept of “black slavery” current as if we owe perennial reparations for what has been done in the past. During history, many groups, black and white, have been abused and enslaved – perhaps we should all ask for reparations and special treatment to atone for past wrong-doings. Slavery is still practiced in some Muslim countries today yet liberals are mum about it. Progressives have yet to “free Tibet,” “coexist” with people who think and live differently, and address the genocide of non-Muslims in Darfur and the killings of Coptic Christians in Egypt.

When we disagree with the liberal/progressive ideals, we are ridiculed by the Political Correctness police, we are attacked, banned, boycotted, fired, and discredited professionally. If we dare to criticize, we are accused of “hate speech” no matter what the topic. How long before we are fined, re-educated, and/or jailed for our diverging views and opinions? Isn’t political correctness the stifling of free speech and coercive censorship?