In Cuba, the people are fighting for their freedom against Communist tyranny.
Just as the people of Hong Kong have been protesting the despotic rule of the People’s Republic of China.
Isn’t it ironic that all over the world the American flag is a symbol of freedom, except here in America? In the United States, our leftist elite despises the flag as a symbol of racism and hate. They are triggered by the sight of the flag. Children are taught to hate the American Flag.
I think this tells us everything we need to know about the American flag-hating left. They are not fighting against racism but freedom. They despise the greatest symbol of freedom in the world as much as they despise the freedom that flag represents. These socialists are on the same side as the tyrants of Cuba, China, and everywhere else freedom is denied to the people. They are on the same side as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and every other despot who tormented the people he ruled. Their Critical Race Theories and 1619 Projects and socialist politics are simply a way to attempt to impose the same sort of totalitarian rule that the brave people of Cuba and Hong Kong are fighting against.
For millions of people around the world, the American flag stands for freedom. It is a pity that is no longer the case for so many people here at home.
The philosopher and novelist George Santayana has famously said, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” No where could that be more true than in Denver, Colorado where an avowed Communist has won election to the city council by promising to impose Communism by any means necessary. Here is the story from the American Mirror.
Candi CdeBaca won a runoff race last week against former Denver city council president Albus Brooks, and she did it by promising to implement communist policies “by any means necessary.”
CdeBaca was among three candidates that unseated incumbents in the Tuesday runoff, preliminary results show, and she’s already drawing comparisons to Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year-old who unseated 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th congressional district in 2018.
The upset victory, and two other incumbent defeats, marks the most significant shift in city leadership in over 30 years, and Valverde contends it “began a movement” toward more progressive policies once the new members are sworn in this week, The Denver Channel reports.
One might think that a candidate expressing support and promising to deliver Communism, a political and economic system responsible for the death of at least one hundred million people world wide, with the oppressive tyrannies in history would be absolutely toxic to voters, at least as toxic as a candidate espousing Nazism. Why is that not the case? Are people really that unaware of Communism’s horrifically bloody and repressive history or of the history of the twentieth century? What are they teaching in the schools that has large numbers of young people so ignorant?
A Harris poll conducted for Axios on HBO published Sunday found 55 percent of American women between the ages of 18 and 54 would prefer to live in a socialist country like Venezuela than the U.S. More broadly, the four in 10 Americans said the same.
Candi CdeBaca explains the need for Communism.
“I don’t believe our current economic system actually works. Um, capitalism by design is extractive and in order to generate profit in a capitalist system, something has to be exploited, that’s land, labor or resources,” CdeBaca alleged.
“And I think that we’re in late phase capitalism and we know it doesn’t work and we have to move into something new, and I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources and distribution of those resources,” she continued. “And whatever that morphs into is I think what will serve community the best and I’m excited to usher it in by any means necessary.”
When we are talking about Capitalism, we are talking about the system that has made the world wealthy on a scale undreamed of in previous ages, a system that has lifted millions out of poverty. Look at this chart from Human Progress.
Notice how the world’s wealth has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution and exponentially since the arrival of modern Capitalism. For millennia, economic growth all over the world was very slow or nonexistent. It was Capitalism that changed that. All the various forms of Socialism, including and especially Communism would return us to the bad, old days of slow or no growth.
But Capitalism might benefit the the wealthy one percent, ignoramuses like Candi CdeBaca might argue, but it only promises misery for the great masses of exploited people. Not so fast, here are some more charts from Human Progress.
Contrary to what is often said, the rich may be getting richer, but the poor are not getting poorer. For most of human history, the overwhelming majority of the population lived in poverty with barely enough to eat. Not only is the number, not just the proportion but the overall number in an expanding population, of people living in extreme poverty is declining. For the first time ever, the number of people living in extreme poverty is a rapidly declining minority.
All this is very well, but can we really give credit to Capitalism. Well, yes. Let’s do some comparisons. We’ll start with North and South Korea. They have the same ethnic background, speak the same language and have the same culture. After the Korean War, both countries were equally poor. If anything, one might expect the more industrialized North to prosper.
They began to diverge right about the time that South Korea began embracing democracy and the free market. Since then, South Korea has become democracy with one of the world’s largest economies, while North Korea remains a basket case.
What about East Germany and West Germany? Same language and culture, different results. Capitalist West Germany experienced an economic miracle in the decades after World War II. Communist East Germany’s economy was stagnant. In fact, the legacy of Communism has caused the former East Germany to lag behind the West.
One more. Taiwan and China. Before the economic reforms beginning in the 1980’s, the People’s Republic of China was actually poorer than North Korea, while the little island of Taiwan was experiencing phenomenal economic growth. China has been doing very well lately, but Taiwan’s per capita GDP is still much higher. Taiwan is a democracy while China remains a Communist state, albeit one that has made its peace with the somewhat free market. I would rather live in Taiwan than mainland China.
The science is settled, the facts are clear, the verdict is in and Candi CdeBaca doesn’t know what she is talking about. Our current economic system works very well. It is not a perfect system, nothing in this world is perfect, but our free market system has liberated millions of people from poverty and tyranny. Despite its faults, Capitalism works and socialism does not. We learned this fact with many examples in the twentieth century. Will we have to relearn it in the twenty-first? Are we condemned to repeat the bloody past because we cannot learn from the tragedies of others? What are they teaching in our schools?
A couple of days ago, I read an interesting article in The Guardian titled “Time Travelers: Please Don’t Kill Hitler” by Dean Burnett. In this article, Mr. Burnett makes the argument that terrible as Adolf Hitler was, it would be a mistake for someone from the future to go back in time and kill him.
If you find yourself suddenly gaining access to a time machine, what’s the first thing you’d do? If you said “kill Adolf Hitler”, then congratulations; you’re a science-fiction character. Actually, the whole “access to a time machine” thing suggested that already, but the desire to kill Hitler clinches it. Any time-travelling sci-fi character (at least ones created by Western society) seems to want to kill Hitler, so much so that there’s a trope about how it’s impossible.
That attempting to kill Hitler has become such a common sci-fi plot device speaks volumes. What about Stalin? He was arguably worse, killing 20 million of his own people to fuel his ideology. But no, Stalin went about his business unmolested by time travellers, all of whom are busy targeting Hitler.
It’s understandable. Who wouldn’t want to prevent the holocaust? It’s probably the worst thing in history. And I only say “probably” because I don’t know all of history, and the human capacity to be awful should not be underestimated. But as noble as it seems, killing the Fuhrer via time travel is a terrible idea, for real-world reasons, not just those in fiction. So should you get hold of a time machine and make plans to kill Hitler, here are some reasons why you shouldn’t.
He gives some very good arguments for not killing Hitler and the whole article is worth reading. Personally, I do not think that Hitler was the greatest villain in history. Don’t get me wrong. He was an evil person and the Holocaust was one of the greatest atrocities in human history, but Stalin and Mao killed far more people than Hitler and their regimes were far more cruel. I would not want to live under any dictatorship but I would prefer to live in Nazi Germany over Communist Russia or China. Pol Pot has the record for most people killed in proportion to the population of the the country he ruled. Under his rule the Khmer Rouge may have killed as much as a third of Cambodia’s population. Hitler was eventually defeated. Communism fell in the Soviet Union and has been much modified in China. In North Korea and Cuba, the people have suffered under unreformed Communist tyranny for over fifty years, longer than anywhere else. Castro and the Kim dynasty may not have the death toll of a Hitler or Stalin but the misery they have inflicted on their people must be as great over time.
One argument that Burnett makes is that Hitler was uniquely responsible for the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust. This was hardly the case.
Stephen Fry dealt with this superbly in his book Making History. Without spoilers, the problem is that many assume Hitler was the sole cause of the second world war and all the associated horrors. Sadly, this is a gross oversimplification. Germany in the 1930s wasn’t a utopia of basket-weaving peace lovers who were suddenly and severely corrupted by Hitler’s charismatic moustache. The political tensions and strife were all there, results of a previous world war and a great depression; Hitler was just able to capitalise on this. But if he hadn’t, say because he had been eliminated by an errant time traveller, then there’s nothing to say that nobody else would.
The truth is that Hitler invented very little of the ideology of the Nazi Party. Most of the ideas he preached; the Aryan master race, the evil of the Jews, the necessity of struggle to improve the race, etc, were held by many Germans who considered themselves enlightened and progressive. The minds of most educated Germans, (and others throughout the West) were filled with ideas from Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and others in a sort of mixture that included ideas about inferior and superior races and violence as a method of either improving the race through struggle, or overturning a corrupt order to bring about a new world. In other words, Hitler was far from being the only person who supported ideas that we now associate with the Nazis, nor did he really have much trouble convincing millions of Germans he was right. If Hitler had been killed in childhood by a time traveler, it is likely some one else, with the same sort of ideas would have come to power.
The Nazis weren’t the only ones who wanted to overthrow the Weimar Republic. The Communists were the Nazi’s greatest rivals in politics. Without a Hitler, perhaps the Communists would have come to power in the 1930s. That might have been far worse Germany and the world. Hitler was briefly allied with Stalin from 1939 until 1941 when he double crossed Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union. This was Hitler’s greatest mistake and it caused him to lose the war. If Germany were controlled by Communist leader who remained allied with Stalin, perhaps even a puppet of Stalin, the resulting Russo-German alliance might have been unbeatable, at least until the invention of the atomic bomb. World War II could have been a whole lot worse and perhaps the good guys, (or at least us) may not have won against a more competent Führer. Something to think about if you ever manage to acquire a time machine.
Lately, for perhaps the last five or so years, I have had the oddest feeling that I have been living in a country occupied by an implacable enemy bent on demoralizing and fundamentally changing this country as much as possible. It’s silly, I know, but Sarah Hoyt has been having somewhat similar thoughts.
We’ve talked about this before, but in fact, I don’t think there has ever been a country like ours, where our elites are deliberately taught – in our best schools – to hate and despise everything that we are, everything that makes us unique. I don’t think there has ever been another country where our elites are taught to be ashamed to call themselves by our national name.
Or rather, there have been countries like that – but they were countries who’d lost a war, and where the governing elite were in fact puppets of their erstwhile enemy, sent in to utterly destroy what the country used to be and to make sure that it did not rise again and (maybe) next time win the war.
Did we lose the cold war? Well, of course not. Of course we didn’t. The Sov Union fell apart. Their internal economy was a shambles – communism does that – and they are suffering the fate of the defeated in a material and obvious way. The name for prostitute in most of Europe (and the Arab countries) is Natasha. Their population is crashing. Their men are dying of alcoholism and internally they are being taken over by a hostile minority. Ignore the invasion of Georgia, those are the spasms of the dying bear. It’s inevitable, in material terms to be aware that when it comes to the si devant Sov union the applicable Latin phrase is Vae Victis.
But here’s the thing – long before communism had lost the cold war, it had won the propaganda war.
Part of this was their saber rattling and the craven and raw nature of our intellectual classes. Craven because they know themselves to be weak. Dueling with your mind might be an exciting sport – it is, I know, I do it – but it avails nothing when confronted by thugs with hobnail boots. Most of those who labor in the vineyard of words find themselves utterly naked and defenseless in even the most minor physical confrontation. (Note, I said most, not all. I would not advise you to pick a fight with most of Baen. Even myself and Dave Freer who are relatively mild put bite into any fight – he, because he’s a devious bastage and I say that in the most profound affection [if I ever govern anything he’ll be my secretary of dirty tricks. The man has no bounds.] and I because I’m built like a tank and I berserk.) So they both turn coward – and justify it in big words – by cleaving to the people they think are going to invade and kick their butts. Now it’s Islam, but once upon a time it was communism; and they glorify and have a sort of hard on for violent sorts. Hence, their worship of that despicable, blood tinged psychopath, Che.
And they were really scared of communism. It also made sense in their minds – communism, I mean – as it can only make sense in the minds of people who live in the sheltered world of academia or the irrational world of art. And so… they turned.
Now many of these people, from the president on down seem to be running things. I wonder again, where do all of these people who seem to hate their own country really come from? Why do they have such hatred for one of the freest and most prosperous countries the world has ever known while idolizing the cruelest, most blood thirsty tyrants. Are they really cowards, or simply fools? Maybe there should be some sort of psychological study done of this phenomena.
When Jamie Glazov’s dissident parents escaped from the Soviet Union and immigrated to America, they were surprised to discover that American intellectuals were hostile to them. These leftists opposed their attempts to tell their stories about the continuing oppression of the Soviet government. The leftists opposed their own country and longed for its defeat while supporting every mass murdering dictator, no matter how vile. Growing up, Glazov had to wonder why these people could be so opposed to freedom.
Why do progressives who profess to care about equality, civil rights, social justice, and who endlessly criticize the West, and particularly the United States for not abiding by their high standards, ignore the worst violations of the most basic concepts of human rights by totalitarian regimes abroad? Perhaps they are taken in by these governments’ propaganda. The Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China., Fidel Castro’s Cuba and others have all tried to persuade the world that they are utopias of freedom and plenty. Yet, the truth about all of these regimes has been readily available to any who have cared to look. Why then have progressives never bothered to look. Even worse, why when they have visited such miserable hellholes of tyranny and poverty have they never looked beyond the guided tours furnished by government agents to see the truth about the countries they are visiting?
More recently, progressives have supported movements that have made no pretense of supporting modern concepts of human rights. I am referring, of course, to the contemporary trend among progressives to support Islamic fascists and terrorists. These people are perhaps the least progressive people in the world, with seventh century ideas about religious tolerance and gender relations, yet progressives who support feminism and gay marriage fully support people who stone homosexuals and compel women to cover themselves. Why?
Jamie Glazov has an answer in his book United in Hate. He describes people of the left (Not necessarily liberals, liberals such as Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey, not to mention John F Kennedy were dedicated to the cause of defeating the tyranny of the Communists) as people who have become profoundly alienated from their own society. These people seek to submerge themselves into a great cause, to extinguish their own individuality, which has only caused them pain, into a collective whole. It is not themselves that is at fault for their alienation, it is the greater society in which they live. Therefore, they seek to identify with the victims, real or imagined, of that society and develop apocalyptic fantasies of destroying it to make a better world. The details of that better world are seldom developed in detail. It is the destruction that appeals to them.
This explains, according to Glazov, the progressive fondness for mass murderers. They are attracted to power and nowhere is power more manifested than in the destruction of millions of human beings. Moreover, mass death and destruction suited their apocalyptic worldview. Radicals adored the Soviet Union of Stalin or the China of Mao. They have had considerably less fondness for their more moderate successors. Stalin and Mao are preferable to Brezhnev and Deng Xiaoping precisely because the former were mass murderers and the latter were not.
This leads then to the progressive support of radical Islam. Not only are Islamic terrorists enemies of the West and share a common enemy with the Progressives, but Islam can be, like Communism and Fascism a totalizing political ideology in which individuals are completely subordinated to the state, or in Islam’s case the ummah or worldwide religious community of Islam. It is noteworthy that the progressives have little use or support for more moderate or liberal interpretations of Islam. Then in addition, like Christianity and, to a considerably lesser extent Judaism, Islam has an apocalyptic tradition that appeals to the progressive.
I have only scratched the surface of Jamie Glazov’s thesis and have hardly mentioned his detailed accounts of the progressive support of various Communist regimes. I strongly encourage anyone to read this book and learn why progressives seem to always support the cause of tyranny and death.
I gather that the Obama campaign has decided on “Forward!” for their slogan. Considering that Obama’s policies are rapidly taking us to fiscal Armageddon, perhaps the Romney team should use “Back Up” for their own slogan.
“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.
The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.
The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning.
There have been at least two radical-left publications named “Vorwaerts” (the German word for “Forward”). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany’s SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.
In the last century, science has made great strides in understanding the world. For the first time in human history, scientists seem to have uncovered the basic laws that the universe runs on. There are however many mysteries not yet understood by science and perhaps they never will be. These include; how salmon can return to the stream they were spawned in, what lies in the middle of a black hole, and how can seemingly intelligent and progressive people be duped into supporting the most evil regimes in history.
Instead, he reveals the history of those dupes who often unwittingly contributed to the Communists efforts against their own country, and often against their stated ideals. We see the strange story of men and women who have fought tirelessly for civil rights in the U. S. justify the most horrendous human rights abuses done in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries.
Kengor is no mere red-baiter. He carefully distinguishes between actual members of the Communist Party of the USA, sympathizers who never actually joined the party, and well meaning dupes who helped the Communists without realizing it. His facts are backed up with careful research, including from the Soviet Communist archives, which were briefly opened for study after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Some of the dupes came to realize they had been fooled and tried to repair the damaged they had caused. John Dewey wrote a glowing book on the educational progress made in Russia after the Revolution, only to turn against Communism when he saw that he had been lied to during his visit to the Soviet Union. William C Bullitt was a radical who learned the truth while ambassador the Soviet Union and tried to warn President Roosevelt, who was a dupe, that “Uncle Joe” Stalin simply could not be trusted under any circumstance. Another dupe was a young actor named Ronald Reagan who joined a front organization. His experience with Communist deceit eventually served him well as president.
Unfortunately, all too many dupes never realized that the Communists were using them in the most cynical fashion.
One might think that this history might be interesting but irrelevant to the present day. After all, Russia is no longer Communist, and although a Communist Party rules in China, they do not seem to be following the teachings of Marx any more. However, as Kengor points out, too many of these dupes remain dupes and continue to give aid to America’s enemies, providing excuses support for Islamic radicals.
Also, there is a certain politician who has connections with left-wing radicals like William Ayers and Hawaii Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who just happens to be president. Is Barak Obama a radical, a sympathizer, a dupe? Who knows, but it is certain that many dupes and worse think of him as one of their own.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of the Cold War, and especially to liberals. If there is any lesson the liberal or progressive needs to learn from Dupes, it is that the Communists were never the progressives’ friends, only their useful idiots.