04/23/15

Why did Ukraine parliament outlaw Communism and Nazism?

By: Oleg Atbashian | First published in PJ Media
The People’s Cube

On April 9th, after a 24-year delay, the Ukrainian parliament (Rada) has passed a legislation banning communist propaganda along with its symbols, from street names and flags, to monuments and plaques.

The new legislation, passed by 56% of parliamentarians, declares the communist government that ruled Ukraine during the Soviet era a criminal regime that conducted policies of state terror. The ban similarly extends to Nazi propaganda and symbols, even though unlike Communism, Nazism has hardly had any following in a country that was hit hard during WWII and the Nazi occupation.

With urgent and serious problems facing Ukraine’s economy, finances, government reform, and a war with Russia-backed separatists, what was the sudden rush to condemn Nazism and communism simultaneously, given that Nazi Germany and the USSR had collapsed in 1945 and 1991 respectively?

On the surface, bundling together these two antihuman, totalitarian ideologies may seem like a symbolic gesture, but in reality each of them was banned for a very different practical reason, both of them of an existential nature.

Communism 2.0: Russians of the world, unite!

Since the beginning of Ukrainian independence, local communists have remained loyal to Moscow, doing the bidding of the political forces in Russia that sought the restoration of the totalitarian Soviet empire. Protected by the constitution, communist demagoguery has worked as a busy conduit for the Kremlin’s anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western imperial agenda.

The pro-Russian separatists in the self-proclaimed “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk are also driven by a similar imperial agenda they call Russkiy Mir (Pax Russiana), rallying under old Soviet flags, with portraits of Lenin and Stalin in their hands.

Those in the Crimea who cheered Russia’s military takeover of their peninsula were similarly nostalgic of the old USSR and the rule of Stalin’s strong hand; they welcomed Russian troops by carrying red flags, portraits of Soviet leaders, and other communist paraphernalia.

Russia’s state-run media cleverly conflates Soviet nostalgia with being Russian or being part of Pax Russiana. This sentiment, fully supported by Ukrainian communists, was effectively used to start a war that has killed more than 6,000 people since April last year and is still simmering in the eastern regions of Ukraine.

Under these circumstances, a ban on communist propaganda and the condemnation of the USSR as a criminal totalitarian regime serves a very concrete purpose of protecting the nation’s sovereignty and independence at a time of war. In this sense, it functions as a Treason and Sedition Act aimed to disable the Fifth Column which is aiding the foreign enemy from within.

Grassroots de-communization

Most Eastern Bloc and some post-Soviet nations marked their independence with policies of de-communization, cleansing their governments of corrupt officials and dismantling the communist legacies in their cultures and psychology. This worked much to their advantage, strengthening their democratic institutions, transparency, international standing, and ultimately their economies.

That had never happened in Ukraine, let alone Russia. Though de jure an independent nation, Ukraine continued to vegetate in Russia’s shadow, instructed by Russia’s media, and manipulated by Russia’s elites who were interested in keeping Ukraine vulnerable, dependent, and corrupt.

Today’s messy developments in Ukraine are largely the result of belated attempts by this vulnerable, dependent, and corrupt nation to right itself and clean up its act under incessant attacks from behind the fence by the drunken abusive ex who thinks nothing of violating restraining orders and believes he has a sacred right to do so.

Last year, tired of waiting for the government to act, grassroots activists throughout Ukraine undertook a self-styled, anarchic effort at de-communization by throwing corrupt, pro-communist politicians into large garbage bins and posting these videos online.

Their bottled-up, spontaneous outburst also resulted in a massive unauthorized demolition of Lenin monuments all over Ukraine. That only threw more fuel on the smoldering separatist sentiment among the pro-Russian minority in Ukraine, as well as on the already blazing nationalism among a powerful majority in Russia, for whom attacks on communist symbols are no different from attacks against Russia itself.

In the end, communist movements in Ukraine and other Eastern European nations aren’t as much about the Marxist theory as they are about the return of Russia’s domineering role in the region. With the inevitability of a speeding freight train, a restoration of Russia’s dominance will also bring back economic, cultural, and political subjugation, Russification, brain drain, persecution of local nationalism and the implied status of inferior people for all non-Russians.

The fascists of today are called anti-fascists

Kiev’s official condemnation of Nazism serves a very different purpose: it aims to undercut Russia’s grotesquely surreal canard that describes last year’s Maidan Revolution in Kiev as a U.S.-backed fascist coup d’état. Repeated over and over, the Russian media’s portrayal of Ukrainians as Nazis has gone a long way to pit ethnic Russians against the formerly brotherly nation.

In addition to conflating communism with Russian chauvinism, the Kremlin’s propaganda is also effectively using the old Soviet trick of conflating everything that opposes the will of the Kremlin with fascism and Nazism: “Communist Russia has defeated Nazism, therefore anyone who opposes communism or Russia must be a Nazi.”

This obvious logical folly would be laughable if it didn’t continue to shape the minds of many in Russia and beyond, even despite the fact that Russia’s own policies of land grab and national chauvinism almost exactly follow those of Nazi Germany in the years leading to WWII.

Trumped up with the reanimated “Great Patriotic War” rhetoric, the Kremlin’s Goebbels-like propaganda is inspiring thousands of Russian volunteers to cross the border and shoot at imaginary fascists in eastern Ukraine, proving Winston Churchill’s prophetic insight: “The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists.”

The effects of this mind game aren’t limited to Russia alone. This video, taken recently in Donetsk, shows a self-described American communist (pictured on the left) who volunteered to join the Russian nationalists and kill Ukrainians within the belief that he was being an “anti-fascist.” Like an “A” student during a school test, he diligently recites all the Kremlin-generated talking points: the Ukrainians are Nazis, the fascist coup in Kiev was instigated by the imperialist United States, the war is part of America’s anti-Russian strategy, and other memes he has likely picked up from the English-language RT and similar propaganda channels and websites. Described in the video as a “Texan” but sounding more like a Californian surfer dude, he promises to keep fighting until a complete and unconditional surrender of all fascists (or until he runs out of that stuff he’s smoking, whichever comes first).

In contrast, this Russian-speaking volunteer from Kirghizstan, who had been also been misled by the propaganda on Russian television and arrived in eastern Ukraine on a moral quest to fight “fascists,” eventually became disillusioned and returned home, accompanying the sealed coffins of two fellow Kyrgyz soldiers. “I thought that there were fascists there,” he says in an interview to Radio Liberty, “but I didn’t see any. We fought against the regular Ukrainian Army.” Unlike the English-speaking “Texan” above, he was able to communicate with local residents and captive Ukrainian soldiers. “It turned out that everything was agitation, propaganda,” he concludes. “This was really offensive to me.”

Why now?

On May 9th Russia is going to celebrate Victory Day: the 70th anniversary of the surrender of Nazi Germany to allied forces in World War II (the official Russians term for it is the “Great Patriotic War,” which lasted from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945).

Every Russian government starting with Stalin has habitually attributed all credit for the victory to itself and sometimes to the “unbreakable friendship of Soviet nations united under Russia and guided by the Communist Party and personally by Comrade Stalin.” Faithful to the tradition of utilizing Victory Day as a vehicle for a self-serving political agenda, Russia’s state-run media has already begun to whip up jingoistic fervor in the run-up to the holiday, using victory over Nazism as a launching site for spectacular anti-Ukrainian fireworks.

This year’s Victory Day was meant to be especially bombastic. Every more or less significant world leader had been invited to attend the military parade on Red Square. They were expected to stand side by side with Vladimir Putin, thus reaffirming the Russian (and, by extension, Soviet) military’s leading role in the “struggle for peace,” which would validate Russia’s current policies and show everyone who’s boss.

Putin has once boasted in an interview that, as a chess player, he never makes a political move without calculating several steps ahead. The conflict in Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimea, however, has been nothing but a series of fundamental miscalculations. As a result, all serious heads of state have declined his invitations. The “group of international leaders” on the podium will likely be limited to Third World miscreants hoping to get on Putin’s good side in order to score cheaper oil, weapons, or nuclear technology. The biggest international celebrity will undoubtedly be North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Un, who has officially confirmed his appearance.

Until now Ukraine had been slavishly following Russia’s lead in perpetuating Stalinist mythology of the “Great Patriotic War” – a trend jealously enforced by Russia as a symbol of Moscow’s continued sway over the neighboring post-Soviet states. But another new law, adopted in Kiev along with the ban on communist and Nazi propaganda, has broken the old pattern.

From now on, Ukraine will join the rest of the world in marking the end of the war on May 8th, as the Day of Remembrance and Reconciliation for Those Who Lost Their Lives during World War II, in 1939-1945. After all, the war came to the western part of Ukraine two years before it came to Russia, after the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact started WWII by splitting Poland in half. What transpired in Ukraine wholly contradicts Russia’s “Great Patriotic War” narrative.

The Nazi smear

The Red Army invasion into well-off western Ukraine (then part of Poland) in September of 1939 brought repressions and deportations, provoking armed resistance on the part of Ukrainian patriots. Upon the advance of the German army in 1941, nationalist groups organized into the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which fought against the Third Reich throughout the Nazi occupation. After the return of the Red Army in 1944 they continued to fight a losing battle against the communists in western Ukraine all the way through the mid-1950s. The Stalinist regime self-servingly described these anti-communist freedom fighters as Nazis – a myth in which most Ukrainians were later forced to believe under the threat of imprisonment, and which is still thoroughly cultivated in Russia.

Today many in Ukraine feel that the UPA fighters must be recognized and remembered along with other WWII heroes and victims. This notion is still being fiercely rejected by most Russians and those Soviet-era Ukrainians who can’t part with the Soviet mythology, believing that the UPA were Nazi collaborators.

The Nazi smear allowed the Soviet communists to keep Ukrainian nationalism in check until the day the USSR collapsed. But Russian state-run TV channels, which continued to be available throughout Ukraine, persisted with the Nazi smear even after the independence, effectively influencing Ukrainian voters in every election cycle by painting pro-Western politicians as neo-Nazis and promoting Moscow-backed politicians, one of whom was the ousted president Viktor Yanukovych.

Thus, Russia’s current allegation that the 2014 revolution in Ukraine was a Nazi coup orchestrated by the CIA and the U.S. State Department is not a new invention, but merely a modern-day remake of the hoary propagandistic myth started 70 years ago by Stalin.

Accordingly, Ukrainian parliament’s official condemnation of Nazism was clearly an attempt to put that damaging Stalinist narrative to rest.

In an effort to replace the old Soviet symbolism with a new one, on April 7th Ukraine’s First Lady Maryna Poroshenko attended a “Remembrance Poppy” event marking the anniversary of the Nazi surrender.

Since many older people may still want to follow the old Victory Day tradition on May 9th, the holiday will remain, but the phrase “the Great Patriotic War” will now be replaced by “World War II.” Given that most Red Army veterans in Ukraine will likely parade with their Soviet medals in violation of the ban on communist symbols, enforcing the new law may put the government in an uncomfortable position. Perhaps the police will be advised to turn a blind eye; we’ll have to wait and see.

As part of Russia’s angry response to this legislation, its Foreign Ministry representative Konstantin Dolgov, endowed with an Orwellian title “Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law,” called Ukraine’s ban on communist ideology a “cynical move,” which violates international obligations by depriving many of its citizens their legal rights. The E.U. and the U.S. should no longer ignore this,” he wrote on his Twitter blog. The diplomat ended his statement on a surreal note, saying that a law that equates communism and Nazism somehow “reveals Kiev’s depraved unwillingness to break with the neo-Nazis.”

The Russian social media’s reaction is a lot more vocal but a lot less quotable. In the minds of pro-Putin patriots, the world outside of Russia’s borders is populated entirely by virulent Russophobes whose only purpose in life is to hurt Russia out of sheer hatred for Russia’s big heart and spirituality. But, like a broken clock that shows the correct hour twice daily, this time they get it right: Ukraine’s ban on both communist and Nazi propaganda is directed, quite deservedly, against Russia with its Orwellian policies.

03/12/15

Testosterone Deficient America

03/2/15

Israel’s Enemies in America and Russia

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington and speaks to Congress, bypassing the Obama administration, the stakes could not be higher. But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel. The important new book, “The USA and The New World Order,” features a debate in which one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key advisers, Alexander Dugin, criticizes Israel’s “imperialist” role in the Middle East and America’s role in the world as a whole.

A careful reading of this important debate, which occurred in 2011 and has recently been published in book form, demonstrates that it is Russia which is the main threat to Israel and the United States.

Dugin’s debate opponent, the anti-communist Brazilian writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, sees Dugin as the brains behind Putin’s geopolitical strategy that embraces “genocidal violence.” He notes that Dugin has “advocated the systematic killing of Ukrainians—a people who, according to him, do not belong to the human species.”

As for Israel, the debate transcript shows that Dugin regards the Jewish state as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This is a rather straightforward view of how the Moscow regime views Israel today, and why it backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology, and diplomatic support.

The term “Atlantist” or “Atlanticist” is meant to refer to trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe, the United States and Canada in defense and other areas.

Iran is a key part of the anti-American alliance. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the debate with de Carvalho, Dugin proclaims, “I have nothing against Israel,” then quickly added, “but its cruelty in repressing the Palestinians is evident.”

To which de Carvalho counters, “The rockets that the Palestinians fire practically every day at non-military areas of Israel are never reported by the international big media, whereas any raid by Israel against Palestinian military installations always provokes the greatest outcry all over the world.”

He tells Dugin, “I know the facts, my friend. I know the dose of violence on both sides. I know, for instance, that the Israelis never use human shields, while the Palestinians almost always do it. I know that, in Israel, Muslims have civil rights and are protected by the police, while, in countries under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are treated as dogs and often stoned to death.”

This exchange is only part of a debate that puts Israel in the context of a global conflict that Dugin sees as “The West against the rest.” The world is going through a “global transition,” away from dominance by the U.S. and its allies, he asserts.

De Carvalho commented that Dugin, himself the son of a KGB officer, is “the political mentor of a man [Vladimir Putin] who is the very incarnation of the KGB.” He said that Dugin has emerged as “the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time—a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents.”

De Carvalho describes Eurasianism as “a synthesis of the defunct USSR and the Tzarist Empire” that includes philosophical elements of Marxism-Leninism, Russian Messianism, Nazism, and esotericism. The last element is a reference to certain occult influences in Russia.

“In order to fulfill his plans,” de Carvalho explains, “he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves under the banner of his ‘Eurasian’ project.”

He says the historical roles played by Russia and China in sponsoring and arming terrorist groups help explain why global Islam has targeted the United States and Israel. “Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one,” he notes.

In this global war for domination, however, he also identifies a “globalist elite,” including in the U.S. Government and society, which wants to destroy traditional Christianity and share in “the spoils” from the decaying West.

What we are witnessing, he writes, is an “alliance of Russia with China and the Islamic countries, as well as with part of Western Europe,” that has come together in a “total war against the United States and Israel,” which is to be followed by “the establishment of a worldwide dictatorship.” It is the replacement of an “Atlanticist Order” by the “Eurasian Order.”

For those who doubt such global schemes could come to pass, de Carvalho says that Dugin “is not a dreamer, a macabre poet creating imaginary hecatombs in a dark dungeon infested with rats.” Rather, he is “the mentor of the Putin government and the brains behind Russian foreign policy,” whose ideas “have long ceased to be mere speculations.”

De Carvalho identifies among these “material incarnations” of the Dugin vision the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group founded by Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which “intends to be the center of a restructuring of military power in the world.” Iran has been an observer state at the SCO since 2005. He also cites the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a geopolitical term for countries which are seen as developing a mechanism to replace NATO, the one-time anti-communist alliance.

Another such international organization is the BRICS alliance of nations, incorporating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Iran is also discussing joining BRICS.

On January 20, Iran and Russia signed an agreement expanding their military ties. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow wants to develop a “long-term and multifaceted” military relationship with Iran. Just a few days ago Russia offered to sell the Antey-2500 anti- aircraft and ballistic missile system to Iran. “The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes,” Reuters reported.

For its part, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been warning about Iran while simultaneously conducting cordial relations with Russia and refusing to condemn Putin for invading Ukraine. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel will maintain “neutrality” in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “Maintenance of good relations with Russia is a priority moment for Israel and its principal stance,” Lieberman said.

It has been estimated that more than 6,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of the country. The Obama administration has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons for its own self-defense.

12/23/14

A World Conspiracy

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

There probably is not a more loaded word these days than “conspiracy.” So often I hear people who may believe something nefarious might be going on anxiously qualify their position by insisting they are not a “conspiracy theorist.” And I completely understand the sentiment. Let’s face it, there are a lot of crackpot theories going around on numerous issues these days. So much so, the word conspiracy evokes an almost Pavlovian reaction in many people.

But just what is a conspiracy? It’s simply the act of two or more people agreeing to commit an illegal or immoral act. Conspiracies happen all the time—both big and small. The trick is to determine if it really is a conspiracy or not. And often times, the bigger the conspiracy, the harder it is to prove.

One of the greatest conspiracies of all time, in my opinion, is communism itself. Oh, and that’s not just my opinion. Conspiracy is one of the essential parts of communism, as I hope to point out in this article. Once again, this is not just my opinion, it comes straight from the communists themselves.

In my own experience, quite a few people I have encountered really have no idea what communism is all about. They might know the history of communism, but they often times don’t understand or grasp the ideology behind it. And let’s face it, the mere mention of the word communism is enough to make some people look at their watch and say, “Well, I better get going now.” The reaction is similar to when one uses the word “conspiracy.”

Another reason I believe a number of people glaze over when the subject of communism is brought up is due to the dangerously misguided belief communism was defeated when the Berlin Wall came down. But the fact of the matter is one out of every five people on earth still lives under an oppressive communist regime. The countries that still identify themselves as communist are:

China
Laos
Cuba
Vietnam
North Korea

Of course, I would still consider the regime in Russia as communist. Furthermore, the above list only includes regimes openly identifying themselves as communist. Most of South America and Africa are ruled by leftist regimes who embrace some form of socialism. (Brazil just elected a former communist terrorist for president.) And the ideological foundation of the European Union has been called Eurocommunism. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has described the EU as a “pale version of the Soviet Union.”

Communist regimes have killed more than 100 million people worldwide in the 20th Century alone. And I would venture to say, that is a conservative estimate. So how can one think communism does not still pose a grave and ominous threat to all of humanity? It seems one must suspend all logic and reason to come to such a conclusion. This is why I feel so strongly that it is of paramount importance freedom-loving people understand the ideology and political goals behind communism and its implementation.

Naturally, it is not easy to boil a massive subject like communism down to a nutshell. But I have been studying the subject matter for several years know, and I’m going to attempt to do just that—boil some things down to a nutshell.

Most communist leaders rarely invoke the term communism. Instead, they talk of socialism. Remember, the USSR stood for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Stalin almost always referred to communism as socialism, as have many other communist leaders. The USSR’s Constitution states 57 times the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” is a socialist nation. Only twice is the word “communist” found in the Soviet Constitution. It is a political party that serves as “the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and is the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state.” (Article 6, Soviet Constitution)

Granted, there is a fair amount of debate between scholars and historians on how socialism and communism differ. But many of these perceived differences are merely academic. In practice, there is very little difference between socialism and communism. But there are some things worth mentioning concerning the differences between socialism and communism.

A more concise definition on the difference between socialism and communism: “A communist is a socialist in a hurry.” Others have stated, “A communist is someone who is not afraid to pull the trigger.” Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) is quoted as saying, “Socialism is the road to communism.”

Of course, there would be no communism without Marxism. The economic, social and cultural theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels form the ideological foundation of communism, i.e. socialism. But Marx was a theoretician, not a practitioner of socialism, per se. It was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin who first put the theories of Marx & Engels into practice—referred to as Marxism-Leninism.

Interestingly, about ninety-percent of what Karl Marx wrote solely concerned economics, as evidenced by his seminal work Das Kapital—which coined the term “capitalism.” (From the best I can gather, the term capitalism was not used in the United States until the latter part of the 19th Century.) But it was Marx’s call for “revolutionary struggle,” as outlined in the Communist Manifesto (published in 1848), that so captured the imaginations of many radicals at the time—and to the present day.

The entire premise of the Communist Manifesto rests upon the notion of “class struggle.” This is immediately evident when one reads the introductory lines of the Manifesto:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

The concept of oppressor-oppressed lies at the heart of Marxian socialism—us versus them. The oppressor-oppressed model is prevalent in today’s political landscape, as is the notion of “class struggle”—rich vs. poor (see 1% vs. 99%), the haves vs. the have nots, the capitalist vs. the worker, the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, and so on. Most Americans have been subjected to class rhetoric all of their lives—lower-class, middle-class, upper-class … blue collar vs. white collar, etc.

Some modern-day Marxists and their fellow travelers (sympathizers) have expanded upon the oppressor-oppressed dynamic. A good example would be the godfather of “community organizing,” Saul Alinsky. Alinsky added yet another division to the mix: “the have some, want mores.” So now we have the haves (rich) vs. the have some, want mores (middle-class) vs. the have nots (poor), according to Alinsky.

It is important to note, that in the eyes of a Marxian socialist, the middle-class and upper-class represent the “petty bourgeoisie,” as Dr. Carroll Quigley disparagingly refers to the them in his mammoth work Tragedy and Hope.

The middle and upper classes are the economic engine of the United States. But socialism-communism wishes to control the means of production and distribution. In order to control production, one must control the producer—meaning, the individual. Individualism must be wiped out in order to create a true socialistic system, whereby the state will provide the individual with all of their emotional, spiritual and physical needs.

If I were to boil the Communist Manifesto down to its essence, it would be the abolition of private property. And if I were to reduce Marxism down to just one word, it would be sameness. We all will think alike, earn alike, live alike, work alike, dress alike … there will be no flavor for our fare, only sameness … a gray, dreary sameness. And all of this is sold to “the masses“ with lovable slogans like “unity in diversity” and “equality and fairness” and “progress and change.” Sound familiar? Once again, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

(Screencap credit: Yuri Maltsev)

There is another important point to consider regarding Marx’s theory of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” as outlined in the Communist Manifesto. Communism is a Utopia. It does not exist. The theory is the state will eventually “wither away” to nothing. And this will bring in the long awaited “workers’ paradise.” But this is all to occur sometime in the far distant future. Soviet defector Yuri Maltsev explains these concepts in greater depth in some videos I’ve posted here at the blog (see here and here).

(Screencap credit: Yuri Maltsev)

But before the long hoped for Communist Utopia can be realized (where every whim and need will be realized for all the “workers”), nations must be wiped out. This is what is referred to as the “transitional stage.” Many scholars have commented that this part of the Manifesto is not very well thought out. It is analogous to a person who does not like their house, so they decide to burn it down with themselves still in it. It is almost a juvenile belief that from the ashes will arise some great, new Utopia that embodies perfect fairness and equality. Joseph Stalin said the Communist Party must originally be destructive.

(Screencap credit: Yuri Maltsev)

So, at this point, I would like to start breaking down how communism is organized and implemented. I am going to refer to the lessons and experiences of ex-communists. Two of the sources I will be drawing from are Dr. Bella V. Dodd (19o4 – 1969) and Mike Vanderboegh (who claims he was the one who first broke the Fast and Furious story). Both are ex-communists who turned vocal anti-communists.

Bella Dodd points out there are three terms that are important to differentiate concerning communism—meaning: the Communist Conspiracy (world conspiracy), the Communist Party and the Communist Movement. These are three different concepts, and each one must be dealt with differently.

The Communist Conspiracy

The communist conspiracy should really not have the word communist before it, for it is a conspiracy for world control, according to Dr. Bella Dodd.

What is it that the world conspiracy hopes to accomplish?

The world conspiracy compromises a small group of elites located in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, London, Moscow, Hong Kong, etc. Dodd points out that they are a determined group who wish to control the resources of the world. They wish to control all of the world’s natural resources—oil, iron, steel, tin, uranium, timber, and the land itself. (Dodd mentions the late Freddie Fields of Vanderbilt Steel, a card-carrying communist.) In order to control all the natural resources of the world, one must control all the people of the world—all seven billion of them.

Dodd points out that this leads to a rather strange phenomenon—one that confuses many Americans, since they believe that those who would be interested in business and industry would stand staunchly against communism. But the world conspiracy is compromised of many different and disparate groups and individuals.

The world conspiracy operates under different labels at different times: communism, socialism, humanism, goodwill, global governance, internationalism, globalism, economic democracy, industrial democracy, social democracy, and so on—whatever it takes to move people to mass action.

Mike Vanderboegh, a former card-carrying communist, explains it is all just collectivism at the end of the day. Whether one wishes to call it nazism, communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism, nativism, tribalism, racism—ism, ism, ism—everything is in service to the collective.

One of the main goals of communism is to divide the people. When people are busy fighting amongst themselves, they are unable to organize and form an effective opposition. The goal is to so thoroughly divide that the “target” is unable to resist. This is where all the class struggle and oppressed-oppressor rhetoric comes into play. And, unfortunately, the tactic has proved wildly successful. So much so, that even communists themselves have been astonished at how effective the tactic of pitting one group against the other has proven to be.

The communist conspiracy has a secret and a public face. Communists are taught to lie; they are masters of the “language of the lie.” Shrouding their true intentions in lovable labels and slogans (semantic manipulation, as the KGB/FSB calls it) is what communists do best. Examples include phrases like “sustainability,” “economic justice,” “environmental justice,” “global citizenship,” “assault weapons,” “gun control,” “white privilege,” “diversity,” “climate change,” “agents of change,” “progress,” “progressive,” etc.

“If you’ve got the language up front, you’ve already won the debate … They suck you into their worldview,” says Mike Vanderboegh.

The party teaches to never use an outright lie. Instead, communists employ disinformation (Soviet term) to agitate honest grievances. In a similar vein, Saul Alinsky taught, “Rub raw the resentments of the people.”

Mike Vanderboegh explains, “They [the party] take a kernel of truth and wrap it in a lie … packaged so credulous people will pass it on to other credulous people to influence their behavior to go in a certain way.”

There were less than 20,000 Bolsheviks in Russia during the 1917 October revolution who managed to wrest hegemony and control over 200 million Russian citizens, adding credence to the adage that “the organized minority will beat out the unorganized mob every time.”

The communist conspiracy has many different channels of offerings, but it all works toward the same goal: world control.

The Communist Party

The original Communist Party was founded in 1912 by the Bolsheviks, the majority faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party—a group of revolutionaries led by Vladimir I. Lenin. (Bolshevik means “majority” in Russian.)

In 1919, the Communist International (Comintern for short), also known as the Third International, was initiated in Moscow. In the same year, the Communist Party USA was founded in the United States. The Comintern was an international communist organization whose goal was to fight “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”

The Communist Party was established as a blueprint and framework for a future world government. Communist parties (sometimes referred to as the Labor Party or Socialist Labor Party) were established in every nation of the world. Communist parties established internationally were, in effect, skeletons for a future government, not a political party.

The party focuses on politics, economics, social issues—and is particularly interested in the educational systems, and in the cultural life of the people. The party concerns itself with the “morality of the people,” but only for the sake of expediency. The party makes it a point to be out front on any social ill or injustice. But strictly for the purpose of gaining control, and for gaining the ear of the people.

Within the party, members are judged on their “ideological purity.” Mike Vanderboegh describes the levels of “purity” as follows:

“There are radishes, tomatoes and killer tomatoes. A radish (negative term) is a party member who is red on the outside but white on the inside. A tomato is a party member who is red through and through. But a killer tomato is a communist who is willing to pull the trigger.”

There really isn’t a lot of difference between a radical revolutionary and a religious zealot. (Note: I’m not disparaging religion, per se, but rather fanaticism.) A true revolutionary devotes themselves to the struggle much like a religious zealot devotes themselves to their religion. Marxian socialism is a religion in its own right—a faith, albeit one marked by fanatical, atheistic fervor. Nothing comes before the cause, i.e. “the struggle.” Nothing. The precepts of the Marxian faith are well spelled out in Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Communist.

The Communist Movement

The purpose of the Communist Movement is to establish a social and ideological attitude that is pro-left. It comes to the people through very pleasing devices.

Communism in the U.S dates back to before and after the Civil War when Karl Marx visited the States. Marx lectured in New York City, Philadelphia and Boston. He even corresponded with the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. The First International (First Comintern) was disbanded at the Philadelphia Conference in July 1876.

The Communist Movement on a worldwide basis does different things at different times. Communists will do everything they can to unleash confusion, chaos, depravity, perversion, conflict—parent vs. child, black vs. white, gay vs. straight, one religion vs. the other, man vs. woman, etc., etc.

Promising members within the Communist Party were often sent to Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning, where they were taught such things as racial agitation, trade union building, every facet of Russian history (apparently the Russian communists are rather “patriotic,” cf. irony), small arms training and guerrilla tactics.

Inflaming minds on a racial and ethnic basis has proven to be one of the most effective tactics for the communists to divide people and create conflict. (Sound familiar?)

Gaining complete dominance over media, entertainment and educational systems (see Common Core) is of intense importance to the communists, for these institutions and power centers have proven to be the most powerful and influential way to divide the people and forward the party agenda.

Dr. Bella Dodd believed there weren’t but a dozen universities that deserved the name “university.” All the others were simply institutions of indoctrination, moving people in a direction the elites wanted them to go. The purpose of these indoctrination centers is to demoralize students, creating within them a feeling of alienation with everything and everyone around them, particularly with their biological families.

Communists strive to make people ashamed, dissatisfied and unhappy with their country, for they eschew the very notion of national sovereignty and patriotism, since communism employs “radical social change” to move the world toward a “classless, borderless” society. This is why communists often refer to themselves as “citizens of the world,” and not proud citizens of their respective countries. (By the way, Barack Obama considers himself a “citizen of the world.”)

While the press is willing to expose the horrific crimes of Adolf Hitler (and rightly so), they have steadfastly refused to report on the monstrous crimes committed by communist regimes, such as the former Soviet Union and Red China, where mass killings occurred on an industrial scale. The astonishing brutality and barbarism employed by communist regimes is unlike anything that has ever been seen in the history of humanity.

For example, according to Bella Dodd, in North Korea, a million men were transported to Inner Mongolia because the “Korean type” was not a “type” the communists wanted to procreate. The communists decided they were the ones who will decide which nation shall exist, and which “racial stock” should be promoted.

Dodd claims the same forces that moved Communist development also moved fascist development. Communism enthrones the proletariat, the common man. Fascism enthroned the state.

The communist movement is not one monolithic block, but operates under many labels, i.e. organizations. The communist theory of change revolves around creating conflict. This is born out of the theory of dialectical materialism that states all progress is brought about by conflict. They will often create an organization for the sole purpose of creating conflict. If there is no conflict, they engender conflict in order to move public opinion to the left, in the direction of communism. They will create a right in order have people oppose it so they will be pulled toward the left. This is the notion of “controlled opposition.” Vladimir Lenin once said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

From my own research into the origins of communist ideology, I have run up against some rather astonishing and incredibly disturbing claims and allegations. There is a real “heart of darkness” that lies at the center of all this. I can’t fully explain it at this point. I just don’t have enough verifiable and concrete information. But I have been coming to the rather startling conclusion that is something quite sinister that seems to be above communism itself.

In Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Capitalist (1970), which is a critique of Dr. Carroll Quigley’s book Tragedy and Hope, Chapter One includes a rather sobering quote from Dr. Bella Dodd. When I first read the quote, I about fell out of my chair, because it corroborates a lot of related research I have done over the years. But I just didn’t want to believe it was true. It just seemed too incredible … like a bunch of crackpot nonsense. But I’m not so sure now. So, I’ll leave the reader with this excerpt from Chapter One of Skousen’s book, and the reader can make up their own mind.

“I think the Communist conspiracy is merely a branch of a much bigger conspiracy!”

The above statement was made to this reviewer [Cleon Skousen] several years ago by Dr. Bella Dodd, a former member of the National Committee of the U.S. Communist Party.

Perhaps this is an appropriate introduction to a review of Dr. Carroll Quigley’s book,
Tragedy And Hope.

Dr. Dodd said she first became aware of some mysterious super-leadership right after World War II when the U.S. Communist Party had difficulty getting instructions from Moscow on several vital matters requiring immediate attention. The American Communist hierarchy was told that any time they had an emergency of this kind they should contact any one of three designated persons at the Waldorf Towers. Dr. Dodd noted that whenever the Party obtained instructions from any of these three men, Moscow always ratified them.

What puzzled Dr. Dodd was the fact that not one of these three contacts was a Russian. Nor were any of them Communists. In fact, all three were extremely wealthy American capitalists!

Dr. Dodd said, “I would certainly like to find out who is really running things.”