Tag Archive for: Soviet Union

Merrick Garland Is Slowly Defining A New Criminal Class, And Soon You’ll Be Part Of It

What do Kyle Rittenhouse, Donald Trump, Nick Sandmann, Mark Houck, Sarah Comrie (the so-called “Bike Karen”) and Daniel Penny all have in common?

All of them are victims of the “two-tiered justice system” and the leftist media court of public opinion. Conservatives often protest this double standard, understandably since none of these people committed any crime. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department has effectively become a symbol for this kind of persecution in tandem with its local lackeys, criminal foot soldiers and the corporate press.

Crying about double standards or “two-tiered justice,” however, misses the point.  There is no “double standard” — only a hierarchy without you in it. Their persecution of everyone from political opponents to everyday people is designed to remind you that they are the elite and you exist at their pleasure.

To enforce this new hierarchy, Garland and his allies have created a new category of criminal straight out of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917: the “political criminal.”

Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in Gulag Archipelago (pg. 505 if you’re interested) that in the early days of the USSR, thieves and murderers were often treated with kid gloves. They could be rehabilitated, the party line went, and they were often allowed to commit crime if they targeted the right people.

Not so for anyone considered a “political criminal,” either directly or by association. Those people eventually ended up in the GULAG. Now this might seem unsurprising, until you realize that the crime of opposing the state could be something as simple as having more money than your neighbor, belonging to the wrong ethnic group, being Christian or simply existing.

Such people were referred to as “terrorists.” Sound familiar when Joe Biden and the media constantly harping about “white supremacist, ultra-MAGA terrorism?” That label should terrify you.

We’ve seen how we deal with terrorism abroad. We lock them up, don’t give them any due process, or just kill them. That is what Biden and co. are implying they want for you, the political terrorist.

In the leftist mind, conservatives who oppose them are peons. Leftists and their minions are the elite (or at least above you in the social hierarchy) and can do whatever they want without consequences. As long as they serve a purpose, the party has their backs no matter how evil or depraved they are.

In practice, this relationship means that Kyle Rittenhouse was supposed to let his attackers bash his head in. They supported our corrupt system and held all the right views. Kyle Rittenhouse, regardless of his political views, was wrong for opposing them, making him an enemy of the state.

Donald Trump was supposed to roll over and surrender the presidency without a fight. His crime was opposing the Swamp. Same with Daniel Penny. Jordan Neely was part of the left’s strategy to foment chaos. He had every right to be a criminal. Penny had no right to stop his activities as far as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is concerned.

Don’t want your kids to be sexualized in schools and raped down the road? That makes you a terrorist too. You don’t even have the right to defend your own children.

As for Sarah Cowrie, even if she paid for that bike, as far as the left is concerned, she had no right to it because in the left’s twisted world, white people are always wrong – the facts be damned. And if things had gotten violent, you bet the media would have justified it all the way or covered it up.

And the list goes on, and on, and on.

Meanwhile, violent criminals get a pass every time. They are victims of society, liberals say. They can be rehabilitated if only we give a little more money to the system – usually money coming from the political enemies they persecute.

But the reality is that the criminals are coddled not because leftists love them but because they are useful. The Soviets even had a term for this – “social allies.” And for the left, every type of anti-social, child-grooming, murderous criminal is indeed an ally to knocking down the system that allows free people to flourish.

And one more thing: if leftists are trying to lock conservatives up for “terrorism” now, it won’t be long before they start trying to kill you.

AUTHOR

MICHELE GAMA SOSA

Michele Gama Sosa is an opinion editor for the Daily Caller and a historian by training.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ron DeSantis left Trey Gowdy stunned with this plan to drop the hammer on the FBI

‘Treated Like A Criminal’: Prof Alleges College Axed His Contract, Banned Him From Campus Over Conservative Beliefs

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

A Child’s-Eye View of Communism’s Absurdities

Candid childhood memories of life behind the Iron Curtain


It is a truism to say that children have a grasp of reality different from adults; a clearer and more honest grasp that in most cases they lose with maturity. Rare is the man or woman who retains that innocent capacity to see through grown-up hypocrisy and pretence, presented to us so vividly in Hans Andersen’s memorable fairy-tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes.

In this humorous memoir of growing up in a city (unidentified) of 40,000 in the southern Urals of the Soviet Union in the 1970s-1980s, Fr Alexander Krylov, of Russian-German origin, manages to retain the undeceived eyes of childhood as he relates the absurdities and contradictions of life under Communism.

God and family

So many memoirs of living under the Soviet regime are, understandably, riven with bitterness and anger; the suffering has been too great to forget. The young Krylov, an only child, was protected from this by the love and faith of his family: his Catholic mother and grandmother and his Orthodox father.

The latter died when he was aged seven; showing unusual understanding for his age, Krylov realised that he was now “the one man in the family.” A certain independence of outlook seems to have characterised him from the start — probably because, despite the constant atheist propaganda impressed on him at school and in the wider society, “God’s presence in everyday life was… self-evident for our family.”

Much of this was owing to his grandmother’s influence for, as the family breadwinner, his mother had to work long hours outside the home. This grandmother, who had grown up in a German-speaking colony in Russia, resembled a traditional Russian “babushka” in her fortitude, her generosity and her strong faith that years of living in Leonid Brezhnev’s decrepit Soviet society could not erase.

In this world, all its citizens were officially atheist yet, as Krylov relates, everyone in his neighbourhood “knew” who the believers were and what religion they followed. His grandmother “saw an ally in every human being who was seeking God — Jews, Orthodox and Muslims” because — especially in death — “common prayer was much more important than any disagreement.”

There were no churches in his city and he only saw the inside of an Orthodox church (in western Ukraine) before starting school, aged six. Overwhelmed by its icons, candles and awe-inspiring atmosphere, Krylov told his mother, “Let’s stay here forever.” Undeterred, his grandmother erected a homemade altar in their small apartment, with its holy pictures, holy water, hymns and secret celebrations of the great Christian feasts. A candle would be lit in the window at Christmas; it was “somehow implicitly clear that God does not abandon human beings as long as a light is burning in at least one window on Christmas Eve and at least one person is waiting for the Christ-child.”

Economic woes

The author takes a gentle swipe at western society, obsessed with dietary fashions, when he explains, in a chapter titled “Healthy Diet”, why Soviet citizens had no choice but a healthy diet. Trying to survive in a corrupt and inefficient command economy, almost all families had an allotment with fruit trees and vegetables, to compensate for what they could not buy in the shops: everything possible was pickled, canned, stored or preserved. For some reason chickens were plentiful:

“Thanks to the poor work of the chemical industry, they were raised with no additives and usually looked as though they had walked by themselves from the chicken factory to the grocery store.”

I laughed aloud as I read this and other reminiscences, narrated in the candid way of a man who has not lost the artless gaze of a child. (After a distinguished academic career in Moscow, Fr Krylov decided to become a priest aged 42, on Easter Monday 2011 and was ordained in 2016.)

Another anecdote describes how he briefly worked in a grocery store where the shelves were often lacking common items buyers craved. Organising the shop’s store room, he noticed many such items, piled them on a trolley and wheeled it through into the shop, to the delighted surprise of the customers. The teenage boy could not understand why the manageress looked so discomfited and why his employment was suddenly curtailed.

Inner life

Just as the late Russian poet, Irina Ratushinskaya, who spent four years in the Gulag for writing “subversive” poetry, commented she was told so often as a child “there is no God”, that she began to believe in Him, Krylov reflects: “The prohibition against owning a Bible in the Soviet Union could only confirm its importance.”

In a telling incident in his teens, he describes a classroom meeting where these young Soviet citizens planned “to put socialist democracy into action.” This meant denouncing a fellow student who would not obey the rules. Krylov, who had befriended him, defended him in front of his classmates. They then turned on him, aware that he too was somehow “different.” The author comments, “Although I was always present, I lived my own life”. This hidden, inner life, which they sensed though it was never made explicit, presented an existential threat to his fellow student ideologues.

Inevitably, Lenin’s image was everywhere. Joining the Communist youth group, the Young Pioneers, one wore a red neckerchief and star. “Depicted on this star were the head of Lenin and three tongues of fire. I shared with no one my impression that this star depicted the head of Lenin burning in hell.” This was the response of a child whose private faith, never mentioned in class, helped to protect him against the atheism he was forced to listen to in public.

Finally, aged 15, overhearing the jocular remark of a friend’s father that vodka was “opium for the people”, Krylov comments: “Suddenly my eyes were opened: [I realised that] Communism had simply become a new religion.”

If the Emperor in this case was not exactly naked, nonetheless the short, discrete chapters of this kindly memoir remind readers that his clothes were uncomfortable, unsuitable, ill-fitting and threadbare.

This review has been republished with the author’s permission from The Conservative Woman.

AUTHOR

Francis Phillips

More by Francis Phillips

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality

NOTE: This column was originally published on Friday, December 19, 2008.


The utopian ideal of equality of circumstances has captured people’s imagination since ancient times. If only everybody could have the same of everything the world would be different. There would be no envy, no crime, no poverty, no greed, and no unhappiness. From Plato to Karl Marx, many thinkers looked to the state for the creation of that heaven on earth. In our own times, this dream has remained alive in the form of the welfare state, and today it shows itself most distinctly in the appeal of government-managed health care.

Isn’t it obvious, many ask, that government can supply medical care more fairly and less expensively than the selfish profit-oriented free market? Let us remind ourselves that in the Soviet Union the road to medical-care hell was paved with the same good intentions. In October 1917, the Marxist dreams of coming to political power came true in Russia. Now that everyone was to be equal in all aspects of their lives, people would no longer die in the streets from illness. Free medical care would be available for all, rather than reserved only for the “greedy rich.”

But what did the Bolsheviks destroy and what did they create?

In Old Russia, medical care was a consumer-oriented business. Doctors’ incomes and their standard of living were totally dependent upon professionalism and reputation in the wider community. Patients decided which doctor to use, which hospital to go to, and which pharmaceutical products to trust. Doctors worked hard to establish their reputation, an important part of which came from providing charity care for the poor. As in the West, all Russian doctors upon graduation from medical school took the Hippocratic Oath, in which they swore never to reject anyone who needed medical assistance—and as a rule they were loyal to their oath.

In Russian urban areas, there were charity hospitals and out-patient care for the poor and their families. In rural areas, peasants would often pay doctors with a chicken, potatoes, bread, or in the form of domestic services—or received their medical treatment for free. Under the private medical system in Old Russia, doctors were able to earn a comfortable living and therefore could afford to be generous in supplying charity services to those who were in need.

Expectations of high income, along with the status of being a member of a respected profession, generated strong competition for acceptance into medical schools. The best were accepted as students, and the most qualified were hired as professors. At the beginning of the 20th century, the quality of Russian medical care and medical research was internationally recognized. Was it a perfect system? Of course not. But contrary to the socialist myth-makers, medical care in Imperial Russia was widely available and provided in a fairly cost-efficient manner. Both the profit motive of the competitive marketplace and the spirit of charity assured the provision of quality medical services throughout Russian society.

This, then, was the system the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy. Unfortunately, many Russian intellectuals, including medical doctors themselves, were infected with the socialist disease. Seeing so much poverty in a still underdeveloped Russia, many doctors turned their back on the free market and came to believe that government management could create a better society through planned equality of living conditions, education, and certainly medical care. Thus, guided by wrong ideas, the members of the medical profession helped to destroy with their own hands a health-care system that, while certainly not perfect, provided people with skilled treatment, regardless of their income or social background.

Equality for All

In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individual’s medical expenses and health care.

With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors’ and nurses’ incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

Specialized services (mammograms, ultrasounds, and so forth) were available only in a few select hospitals where the doctors were supposed to treat patients as well as participate in research. For example, in the case of brain or cardiovascular surgery and treatment, there were only a few specialized hospitals available in the entire country. People sometimes died waiting in line to be admitted for these treatments.

Medical care became a producer-oriented industry, instead of the consumer-oriented market that it had been in Old Russia. But even the State cannot kill the market, just as the State cannot repeal the laws of God and nature. The market was simply driven “underground,” and thus became the black market. The black-market response to State-rationing occurred immediately. Doctors’ services and pharmaceutical products (both domestic and foreign-made), as well as access to medical-testing equipment, became available for bribes. Unfortunately, only the wealthy elite could afford expensive black-market medical services, while the poor majority could no longer count upon charity.

In the world of “free” medical care in the Soviet Union, people often had to have connections to obtain many of the medicines prescribed by physicians to save their family members and friends. Indifferent and often hostile nurses and orderlies had to be bribed to change a patient’s bedpan or to provide ordinary attention that any American would take for granted during a stay in a hospital.

Hospital wards were crowded and far from antiseptically clean. Anesthetics and basic painkillers were frequently unavailable. The crying of patients in pain could sometimes be heard from outside a hospital by passersby.

Some Are More Equal than Others

Not surprisingly, those in the political elite did not want to be treated in the medical system provided for “the people.” One of the greatest myths about the Soviet Union was its supposed equality for all. No society was so divided into privileged groups and classes as was Soviet society. Where an individual stood in the political hierarchy of the Communist Party and the bureaucratic structure of the socialist economy determined his access to all the essentials as well as the luxuries of life.

Special hospitals were created all around the Soviet Union. These were reserved for the members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the Council of Ministers, the local and regional Party elites, and so forth. The “servants of the people,” as a result, received a qualitatively different level of medical care than “the masses.” The privileged few had access not only to Soviet-made drugs and medications but also to Western European and American medicines and equipment, which could never be within the reach of the ordinary “proletarian” patient.

Affirmative Action, Soviet Style

The nature and quality of medical education were affected, as well. Bribes and connections determined both the hiring and admission processes in medical schools. Skills and professionalism mattered very little, and service to the community did not matter at all.

This poor medical care was reinforced by the fact that entrance into higher education in the Soviet Union was dictated by a system of affirmative action that had been introduced shortly after the triumph of the Socialist Revolution in 1917. At first belonging to a social class —worker, peasant, or intellectual—determined the entry quotas into colleges, universities, and technical schools. But the Soviet affirmative action system was soon expanded to include gender and ethnic classifications as well. A young person’s professional and career opportunities were greatly influenced not by his individual merit but by whether he was, for example, a Russian, an Uzbek, a Georgian, a Lithuanian, a Jew, or somebody else. Every class, gender, and ethnic group had its own quota for admission and hiring into institutions of higher learning.

Connections, bribes, class, gender, and ethnicity heavily determined who were admitted into and graduated from medical schools throughout the Soviet Union. Thus the supplies of hospitals, physicians, medical equipment, and pharmaceuticals all became victims of socialist central planning and political priorities just like everything else in the “workers’ paradise.” At the end of the 20th century, Russia was infamous for having one of the worst health-care systems in the world.

In bitter situations, Russians often respond with jokes and anecdotes. In one of them, an American and a Soviet doctor are talking. The American says, “Dear colleague, our profession is imperfect. You treat the patient from one disease and he dies from another.” The Soviet doctor replies, “No, dear colleague, this is not the case with me. Mine die from whatever I treat them.”

It is easy to say that the present system is imperfect and a radical change will make it perfect in a relatively short period of time. But there are always lessons from history from which to learn. Sometimes, your neighbor’s history warns you which path never to follow.

AUTHOR

ANNA EBELING

Anna Ebeling was born, raised, and educated in the former Soviet Union. Living much of her life in the heart of what Ronald Reagan called “the evil empire,” she experienced first hand the reality of “the workers’ paradise.” Her stories of the absurdities of life in the collectivist utopia are many. Anna met Richard Ebeling in Moscow in May 1991 and married him later that year. Together they joined the defenders of liberty and faced Soviet tanks at the Russian Parliament in Moscow during the attempted hard-line communist coup d’état.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Islamo-Leftism [Part 3]

Editor’s note: The following is a translation by Ibn Warraq and Robert Kerr of Michel Onfray’s L’Art d’Etre Francais (The Art of Being French, Bouquins, 2021), published here for the first time. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.


Foucault went on a second trip in November of that year, and a new series of articles appeared. On February 13, 1979, when Khomeini left for Iran, the philosopher, who had made the trip to Neauphle-le-Château, was present at the airport.

What arguments do the articles he published in the Italian newspaper at the end of 1978 make?

That Islam is the answer to the Shah’s westernization of Iran; that, for want of justice, the Mullahs provide charity in response to the regime’s imperialism; that a Muslim killing another Muslim is scandalous – which is however to ignore the history of Shiite-Sunni relations for almost a millennium and a half; that Israel backed the Shah along with the United States and France (but then so did the Soviet Union); that, paradoxically for a normalien, modernity is archaism – and thus tradition is the true modernity; that the regime was corrupt and that the Shah was imposing on his people “a regime of occupation” comparable “to all colonial regimes” (III, 683).

– therefore, to oppose this is to resist; secularism and industrialization are no longer relevant

-and consequently, theocracy and feudal economy represent the true modernity; the Shah’s regime stands for archaism while that of the Mullahs  is modernity; that the traditional life defended by the Mullahs is preferable to the modernity advocated by the Shah; that “Islam, which for so many centuries has so carefully regulated daily life, family ties, and social relations” (III, 685), is most capable of offering “protection” against the regime – “didn’t its rigor [sic], its immobility [re-sic] determine its success?” Accordingly, “the Islamic government” and the left make common cause without any difficulty  (this is the genealogy of Islamo-leftism); that the Qur’an legitimized the struggle against the Shah, the Americans, “the West and its materialism”; that Islam is fascinated by death and martyrdom (and it is understandable that this proved irresistible to Foucault, who shared this fascination); that the Islamist sermons broadcast in the streets by loudspeaker reminded him of Savonarola – who headed the Catholic theocratic dictatorship in Florence without our philosophy professor being troubled about it; that the Shiite clergy disregards hierarchy, but that one must follow ‘the great ayatollahs’ because they crystallize the will of the people; that Islam is opposed to state power (a notion that a thousand years of Islamic politics refutes); and “that one fact must be clear: By ‘Islamic government’ no one in Iran means a political regime in which the clergy would play a leading or supervisory role” (III, 691) – Everyone will appreciate the philosopher’s immense foresight; that Islam once in power would protect freedoms, minorities, the equality of men and women, that the people could hold those who govern them to account; that this same political Islam would make it possible to reinsert spirituality, that is to say religion, into politics – which means abolishing secularism and restoring the theocratic order that the French Revolution had suppressed in order to favor the democratic order; that a ‘political spirituality’ (III, 694) is a project that ‘impressed’ (that’s his own word) Michel Foucault.

In speaking of this “political spirituality” as something we had forgotten “since the Renaissance and the great crises of Christianity” (though all counter-revolutionary thought was full of it in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, one only has to read Joseph de Maistre[4], Louis de Bonald[5], Blanc de Saint-Bonnet[6]), Foucault writes: “I can already hear the French laughing, but I know they are wrong” (III, 694).

The philosopher, however, was also wrong on this subject: many French people did not laugh, many of them even subscribed to this reactionary and theocratic thinking, since it came from a man who called himself a leftist. I am thinking of Serge July in Libération or Jean Daniel in Le Nouvel Observateur, who also thought along these lines. The same applies to the Parti socialiste. Or with Le Monde, which, since the war in Lebanon in 1975, pitted the “Islamo-progressivists” against the “conservative Christians”. This has since become the dominant ideology of what presents itself as the Left and claims to be progressive.

Islamo-Gauchism was thus born in the wake of this Iranian revolution when Foucault believed that Islamic traditionalist thought, that is to say its anti-Semitism, its phallocracy, its misogyny, its theocracy, its homophobia, were susceptible to become the truth of the future.

He was certainly not wrong to write: “The issue of Islam as a political force is a crucial matter for our time and for the years to come” (III, 708). But why on earth did he think that abolishing secularism, suppressing democracy, renouncing progress, that is, restoring the power of the religious, rehabilitating theocracy, and re-establishing tradition, were the political answers to the crisis of the Western world? The ghost of Foucault hovers over European decadence.

COLUMN BY

REFERENCES:

[4] Joseph de Maistre [1753-1821] was a key figure of the Counter-Enlightenment. He regarded the monarchy both as a divinely sanctioned institution and as the only stable form of government. Maistre argued that the rationalist rejection of Christianity was directly responsible for the disorder and bloodshed which followed the French Revolution of 1789.

[5] Louis de Bonald [1754-1840], was a monarchist who opposed the French Revolution, and wished France to return to the principles of the Roman Catholic Church.

[6] Blanc de Saint-Bonnet [1815-1880] was a counter-revolutionary, anti-liberal who favored social Catholicism. He wrote, “You who separate reason and religion, know that you destroy both. Religion is the health of reason; reason is the strength of religion. Religion without reason becomes superstition. Reason without religion becomes disbelief” (L’Unité spirituelle)

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Comparing the Bolshevik Revolution with Today’s Antifa and BLM Movement

By Wallace Bruschweiler & William Palumbo

Ever since George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police on May 25th, the United States – and to a lesser extent the Western world – has been up in arms, so to speak, allegedly about racial disparities and police brutality.

Now that the public has had nearly four months to observe their activities, we know that the so-called “protest movement” is an utter sham.  More precisely, the “protests” are a cover for something else.  The rampaging duo of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifascists (Antifa) – the two most identifiable “protest” groups – prove with each passing night that they are purveyors of hate and architects of destruction, murder, general chaos, and political boots on the ground.

Let us examine today’s “protesters” and compare them to other movements in modern history.  In reality, these “protesters” are a fifth column whose only discernible ideology is Marxism-Leninism.

The “Protesters” of the Past

In February 1917, a revolution that had been brewing for decades entered its final stage, as the Bolsheviks (and other allied communist groups) forced the abdication of Russian Tsar Nicholas II.  For the next several years Russia was engulfed in a civil war, pitting the Communists against the “White Russians” (traditionalists who supported the monarchy).  Following Communist victory, it took until 1991 – more than 80 years – for the Soviets to finally rid themselves of the “workers” regime.  In the meantime, Communism killed and enslaved tens of millions worldwide.

Bolshevik Revolution – 1917-1923

  • Belligerents: Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, etc. (Communists/Marxist-Leninists) vs. White Russians.
  • Outcome: Communist victory, followed by collapse of Soviet Union in 1991. White Russians and Jews escaped following defeat to three escape routes: Berlin, Thessaloniki, and Shanghai.
  • Modus Operandi: Civil war, secret police, show trials, murder, GULAGs, exile to Siberia, forced labor, ethnic cleansing, torture, etc.
  • Comments: Following Communist victory, Vladimir Lenin consolidated power to become first leader of the USSR. The Soviet regime reached the height of its domestic terrorism during the Stalin era (d. 1953), when during the Great Purge of 1937 approx. 1 million “undesirables” were eliminated.

Yet the allure of Marxist-Leninism is strong.  Indeed, Russia’s descent into the darkness of dystopian tyranny was not enough to prevent European malcontents from attempting to replicate the Soviet Union in western Europe.  During the 1970s and 80s, Europe was plagued by Marxist-Leninist terrorists intent on revolution.  Each country had their own “distinct” terrorist groups, although authorities later realized that they were not only connected to each other, but actively cooperating strategically.

European Terrorism – late 1960s – early 1990s

  • Belligerents: Italy: Red Brigades, Prima Linea, Potere Operaio ; Germany: Baader-Meinhof (aka Rote Armee Fraktion); France: Action Direct ; Spain: ETA ; UK and Ireland: IRA vs. European nations, and intelligence (BKA, MI5, MI6, SISMI, SISDE, etc.).
  • Outcome: Only after the European nations agreed to tackle the terrorism problem in unison, working across borders, was the bloody insurrection defeated.
  • Modus Operandi: Italy: kneecappings, kidnapping, bombs, etc. ; Germany: kidnaping, hostage taking, airplane rerouting, etc. ; UK and Ireland – killing, bombs, bringing down army helicopter.
  • Funding: The Soviet Union via Bulgaria funded European-based terror groups through local Communist newspapers. Also provided support to Palestinian/Arab terrorism. Muammar Gaddafi supported the IRA and ETA through direct bank-to-bank transfers and with weapons.
  • Comments: Political and intellectual support for the violent terrorist groups came from Communist parties in each country, who were often part of the government and intelligentsia.

Timing is Everything

For those unhappy with society for whatever reason, the Marxist-Leninist ideology is perennially attractive. Today’s violent Left – socialism – animated by Marxist-Leninism, shares many parallels with its predecessor movements.

“Protest Movement” – Present time

  • Belligerents: BLM, Antifa, Democrats, and media vs. the police, the public, Trump and Republicans
  • Outcome: TBD – Nov. 3, 2020 (or later)
  • Modus Operandi: Rioting, looting, assault, destruction of public property and monuments, blocking roads and highways, murder, arson, inflicting blindness
  • Support: Soros: funding “racial justice” organizations ~$220 million, the selection, election and support of local DAs ; Media: selective coverage ; China, and also Iran: known to support BLM.
  • Comments: China is America’s main geopolitical foe, and billionaire George Soros is a primary financier of the Democrat Party and global left. Both view President Trump as a threat to the globalization movement.

For the record, both China and Soros back Joe Biden.

Where do we stand at this point in history?  It’s said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  Ignoring the harsh and brutal reality of Communism in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution, terrorists tried to topple Europe and establish their own “workers’ republic.”  But for the dedication of European governments they would have succeeded.  Today, a modern-day socialist, Marxist-Leninist movement has metastasized throughout the US and its political system – we have to stop them in their tracks!

©All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: BLM Leaders in Their Own WordsPragerU.

MOVIE: America Under Siege — Soviet Islam

AmericaUnderSiege_SovietIslam_instagram01-644x644-400x400“Only a coalition of Islamists and Marxists can destroy the United States.” – Ilyich Ramírez Sánchez, AKA Carlos the Jackal

Soviet Islam is the second episode in the five-part America Under Siege webseries releasing over the course of 2017. Each episode investigates the growing influence of revolutionary Marxists and their allies in different sectors of American society.

When the Soviet Union failed to eradicate religion, it quickly changed tactics. After World War II, Soviet Communists forged alliances with unlikely partners – radical Islamists and Middle Eastern nationalist dictators. Beginning in the Cold War and continuing through to today, the Kremlin has armed, trained, and supported these Islamists and dictators to advance a frightening goal: subverting their shared American enemy.

Those radicals became a domestic threat in the 1960s. Religious extremists like the Nation of Islam co-opted Soviet ideology to agitate American institutions and disrupt democracy. For the Soviets, the intent was to make the U.S. ungovernable through organized protest and violence. But while the Cold War may be over, the threat from the Kremlin is now more serious than ever.

Today, Putin is the heir to the Soviet strategy of subversion. Picking up where the old KGB left off, his regime continues to leverage the vast network of radicals across the Middle East and the West the Soviets created.

The film was written by and stars conservative author Trevor Loudon, was directed by Judd Saul, and produced by Cohesion Films in partnership with Dangerous Documentaries (a project of the Capital Research Center). (Bombthrowers is a project of the Capital Research Center, as well.)

Trevor’s research into Soviet and modern Russian influence on radical Islamism and Middle Eastern dictatorships is especially urgent given the current conflict in Syria. Showing that there are still so many influential political actors in America whose ideological roots grow out of the Soviet Union’s past meddling in Islamic society is unsettling — and helps explain Russia’s modern day tactics to subvert its enemies from within.

RELATED ARTICLE: Red-Green Alliance Funded by Billionaire Democrats

EDITORS NOTE: America Under Siege: Soviet Islam is available to watch on DangerousDocumentaries.com.

Shakedown Socialism: Second edition, improved and expanded

The positive response to my first book was overwhelming. Many readers on Amazon praised Shakedown Socialism for its insights, style, and originality, regretting only that it was too short. By popular demand, I have republished it with more relevant material and a new, more attractive cover.

Shakedown SocialismHere is one such review:

I’ve bought books on Amazon for a while but never felt the need to write a review before. This is not a typical anti-socialist book at all. None of the familiar rhetoric you might be expecting. While not an academic work by any means, the author makes some of the most compelling arguments I’ve ever read, and from an angle you seldom think about. His anti-union argument is so perfect, I will be repeating it in conversations for the rest of my life. Some serious mental ammunition for arguments with any unfortunate, collectivist-leaning friends you may have. Even if they refuse to read it, the images (on practically every page) might catch their attention if you can get them to flip through it. Do not click off this page without buying this book.

It inspires me to write and publish more books, and I already have a few good ideas.

For more information, see the updated and improved ShakedownSocialism.com.

You can look inside the new edition, read the reviews, or even buy the book on Amazon.

Amazon buttonAmazon

If you are a fan and would like to support the author and the People’s Cube, buy it directly from the printer at CreateSpace – the price is the same, but I’ll be getting a bigger royalty.

CreateSpace button

But if you really want to support the author, order an autographed copy!

Buy book button

If you like to read on Kindle or any other tablet, there’s an eBook:

Buy book button

Here’s a fun promotion of the first edition: The Best Book Promotion Ever!

Obama reads Shakedown Socialism

Brwzhnev reads Shakedown Socialism

Shakedown Socialism

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about Shakedown Socialism and The Peoples Cube click here.

Soviet Fascism in the 21st Century: Inside A Gigantic Network of Falsehood

It is very true—history repeats itself. When I immigrated to the U.S. and my English improved, I became a Republican. And the first phrase introduced to me about the party was “GOP has never missed the opportunity to miss the opportunity.” Today, thirty four years later, I am a witness of that and it is painful to watch how instead of exposing the Democrats, who are destroying America the Beautiful, the GOP destructs itself from within. Instead of identifying the real enemy of our country and expose the Democrats, the Republicans are missing the opportunity to do so.

This is not the first time, I observed a similar situation in 2008 as well, when I was writing: What is Happening to America?

“When a medical doctor treats a patient, he or she fights the disease and its causes. As a rule, after finding the causes a doctor deals with the disease. That way the patient is cured, his body is healed. These physicians are knowledgeable professionals with experiences to make the right diagnosis. We could establish a parallel with our politicians who unlike the latter specialists, treat the symptoms of the diseases not the disease itself. In this case the patient will never be cured and the treatment will never bring healing. This is somehow similar to the politicians on the world stage today—the leaders of the Western civilization.”

Fox News moderators from left, Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier warm up the crowd before Republican presidential candidates New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Ben Carson, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Donald Trump, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ohio Gov. John Kasich take the stage for the first Republican presidential debate at the Quicken Loans Arena, Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015,  in Cleveland. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Fox News moderators from left, Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier warm up the crowd before Republican presidential candidates New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Ben Carson, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Donald Trump, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ohio Gov. John Kasich take the stage for the first Republican presidential debate at the Quicken Loans Arena, Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015, in Cleveland. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The Republican debates on August 6, 2015

I have no words to describe the pride I felt, watching the majestic seventeen conservatives, their energy, eloquence, and desire to save America at the two Republican debates in August 6, 2015. Yet, it ended up with an unpleasant smell of disunity. Of course, debates are debates and the different ideas are supposed to be presented and argued for one fundamental reason—to expose and defeat the Democrats in the upcoming election of 2016. It did not happened. Moreover, something typical had occurred—the Republicans had tried to defeat their own.

For your information, I like Megyn Kelly, she is definitely a beautiful woman, a very smart one, with eloquence and knowledge of the country’s law. As a lawyer myself, I saw something unusual in her behavior, she was nervous and very aggressive against Donald Trump. A journalist, who is extremely successfully on Fox News, she was not supposed to be nervous—an unethical assignment made her nervous. This is my conclusion on what I saw at the debates. And these the exact circumstances that forces me to return to my main topic—Soviet Fascism.

I do not know the exact reason behind Kelly’s behavior. Maybe the owners of the Fox know more than I do, or maybe it was an attempt to show the Democrats that Fox can do the job at a Democratic debate as well? At any rate, it was not a “good journalism.” Yet, listening to Trump, I got the impression that he knows more about my topic of Soviet Fascism than other politicians. His remarks about the issues of a dreadful condition in the world, gave me that impression. For me, the big picture of the debates presented the dark room with cockroaches in it; Trump enter the room and turned light ON…

The best example is a nuclear deal with Iran. All the components of the deal are under suspicions as the manufactured ones and not corresponded to the real situation of the world. Moreover, the five secret attachments are not known to the vast majority of Americans. Maybe history repeats itself. Those politicians who know the history of WWII, perhaps remember the Molotov/Ribbentrop agreement of the 1939 that preceded and facilitated the war. I am afraid that Obama creates a similar predicament in the world by helping Putin and his satellite Iran to wage a successful next war against Western civilization.

obamaismObama/Putin Joint Venture—Destruction of the American Republic

A famous Russian dissident Vladimir Bukowski once said: “when a Socialist comes to power, you can expect concentration camps.”  He was right—violence is the main feature of Socialism. The perspective for the future Socialist world Karl Marx expressed in his slogan Proletarian of the world unite, which meant a violent world war. One hundred years later Joseph Stalin developed the Socialist intent in a more politically pronounced manner by camouflaging violence: One world Government under the Kremlin auspices. We, the former citizens of the Socialist countries went through that development, called a Mature Socialism. It was a war by the government against its own citizens–a multi-facet war with different fronts, methods, shapes, and forms.

It was Mature Socialism that ended up with the collapse of the Soviet Union and therefore seemed the entire Socialist world. Yet, many Americans are still infected by a virus of Stalin’s Socialism. The question is how it was possible that a fraud, as I identified Stalin’s ideology of Socialism, could survive for almost a century and still seduced a lot of people in the world today? This is the question I have been researching and investigating for many years discussing multi-faceted methods and devices of the Stalin’s social model—its modus operandi.

Living in America for more than thirty years together with other Americans, we are constantly hearing on the radio, TV, and internet two words—Political Correctness, none of the issues of public domain can do without. Does anybody in America or the world knows the architect of PC, its concept or the fundamental agenda behind it? Does anybody know the nature and crucial role those two words played in their lives for decades? The answer to the question will unite us: the former citizens of the Socialist countries and all of the people in the 21st century, as we all together in different times have been manipulated and brainwashed by these two words—Political Correctness.

The predicament in the world requires me to remind you the architect of and the nature of those two words, which seems very neutral indeed. In fact, they are not peaceful, on the contrary they represent the psychological tools or methods to transform a political system by fraud, while simultaneously fighting the ideological opponents. In all my writings I have already introduced a vast majority of Stalin’s methods and devices, however, this concept is the crucial one. To my knowledge Stalin was the author of those two words that were published for the first time in the Soviet newspaper Izvestia in1933, the time when the major transformation was going on in the Soviet Union. He called Politically Incorrect the leaders of the opposition. The American educator confirms my information:

“In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase “Politically Correct” were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists. The phrase was a colloquialism referring to the Communist party line, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. According to American educator Herbert Kohl writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s. “

Writing about Stalinism and watching its ubiquitous application in the 21st century, I was offering my vision of the matter in the preceding columns:

“… Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of quintessential system of leis and a long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.”  It is an addition to many other pages written by me in my books and articles about Stalin’s incredible ability to mislead, lie, and defraud. I have to remind you again, Stalin was such a skillful political intriguer that vast majority of people in the Soviet Union not only believed him, but adored him as a Messiah. Nobody could compete with him in the art of intrigues. Political Correctness had no opponents and reigned in the country—we lived inside a gigantic network of falsehood…

Look at America today. Due to the constant efforts of Obama/Putin joint venture America is drastically transformed, like us, living in the Soviet Union, America lives today inside a gigantic network of falsehood created by Political Correctness. And this is not the end of the resemblances: our economy is going down the tube, our morals are in its lowest level ever. Where is our patriotism, when 55 percent of young people planned to leave the country? Perhaps this is the time to remind you also of a prediction made in the end of 1940s or in the beginning of 1950s. “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” Joseph Stalin.

There are three major components acknowledged by Stalin; American Patriotism, our morality, and our spiritual life. If you analyze them and the following statement you will see a criminal intent in the author’s mind—the negative outcome is the desire to undermine all three. Don’t you see an obvious result of that in America today? If you don’t, you are blind and deaf. In my opinion, Trump was about to crash the fraudulent walls of a gigantic network of falsehood and the incompetent leadership of the GOP tried to prevent it. They do not know that secrecy and deception are the main strategy, two arms of Stalin’s Political Correctness.

I am for Trump, because he is frustrated like I am and millions of Americans, We all together with Trump want to prevent the destruction of America the Beautiful that is going on before our eyes every day under the treacherous leadership of Obama and his party called Democratic. The nuclear agreement with Iran is the epitome of Stalin’s Political Correctness. It illustrates quintessential lies in form and substance and criminal desire to undermine the security of America and Western civilization. It assists, promotes, and furtheres a final “crack-up of the world” as Trump claims.

Maureen Dowd is one of the victims of Political Correctness like many other Democrats. She is very wrong describing Obama as ”a charming new comer like Barack Obama, ascending like a political Pegasus…” Ms. Dowd is one of many blind and the deaf individuals characterizing Obama this way. Using her words, I would call him “a pig in the poke or a pig who pokes.”  I have to admit those are very soft words, my real opinion on Obama you will find in my books and articles.

To be continued at www.simonapipko1.com.

How Ice Cream Won the Cold War by B.K. Marcus

Richard Nixon stood by a lemon-yellow refrigerator in Moscow and bragged to the Soviet leader: “The American system,” he told Nikita Khrushchev over frosted cupcakes and chocolate layer cake, “is designed to take advantage of new inventions.”

It was the opening day of the American National Exhibition at Sokol’niki Park, and Nixon was representing not just the US government but also the latest products from General Mills, Whirlpool, and General Electric. Assisting him in what would come to be known as the “Kitchen Debates” were attractive American spokesmodels who demonstrated for the Russian crowd the best that capitalism in 1959 had to offer.

Capitalist lifestyle

“This was the first time,” writes British food historian Bee Wilson of the summer exhibition, that “many Russians had encountered the American lifestyle firsthand: the first time they … set eyes on big American refrigerators.”

Laughing and sometimes jabbing fingers at one another, the two men debated the merits of capitalism and communism. Which country had the more advanced technologies? Which way of life was better? The conversation … hinged not on weapons or the space race but on washing machines and kitchen gadgets. (Consider the Fork)

Khrushchev was dismissive. Yes, the Americans had brought some fancy machines with them, but did all this consumer technology actually offer any real advantages?

In his memoirs, he later recalled picking up an automatic lemon squeezer. “What a silly thing … Mr. Nixon! … I think it would take a housewife longer to use this gadget than it would for her to … slice a piece of lemon, drop it into a glass of tea, then squeeze a few drops.”

Producing necessities

That same year, Khrushchev announced that the Soviet economy would overtake the United States in the production of milk, meat, and butter. These were products that made sense to him. He couldn’t deliver — although Soviet farmers were forced to slaughter their breeding herds in an attempt to do so — but the goal itself reveals what the communist leader believed a healthy economy was supposed to do: produce staples like meat and dairy, not luxuries like colorful kitchenware and complex gadgetry for the decadent and lazy.

“Don’t you have a machine,” he asked Nixon, “that puts food in the mouth and presses it down? Many things you’ve shown us are interesting but they are not needed in life. They have no useful purpose. They are merely gadgets.”

Khrushchev was displaying the behavior Ludwig von Mises described in The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. “They castigate the luxury, the stupidity and the moral corruption of the exploiting classes,” Mises wrote of the socialists. “In their eyes everything that is bad and ridiculous is bourgeois, and everything that is good and sublime is proletarian.”

On display that summer in Moscow was American consumer tech at its most bourgeois. The problem with “castigating the luxury,” as Mises pointed out, is that all “innovation is first a luxury of only a few people, until by degrees it comes into the reach of the many.”

Producing luxuries

It is appropriate that the Kitchen Debate over luxury versus necessity took place among high-end American refrigerators. Refrigeration, as a luxury, is ancient. “There were ice harvests in China before the first millennium BC,” writes Wilson. “Snow was sold in Athens beginning in the fifth century BC. Aristocrats of the seventeenth century spooned desserts from ice bowls, drank wine chilled with snow, and even ate iced creams and water ices. Yet it was only in the nineteenth century in the United States that ice became an industrial commodity.” Only with modern capitalism, in other words, does the luxury reach so rapidly beyond a tiny elite.

“Capitalism,” Mises wrote in Economic Freedom and Interventionism, “is essentially mass production for the satisfaction of the wants of the masses.”

The man responsible for bringing ice to the overheated multitude was a Boston businessman named Frederic Tudor. “History now knows him as ‘the Ice King,’” Steven Johnson writes of Tudor in How We Got to Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World, “but for most of his early adulthood he was an abject failure, albeit one with remarkable tenacity.”

Like many wealthy families in northern climes, the Tudors stored blocks of frozen lake water in icehouses, two-hundred-pound ice cubes that would remain marvelously unmelted until the hot summer months arrived, and a new ritual began: chipping off slices from the blocks to freshen drinks [and] make ice cream.

In 1800, when Frederic was 17, he accompanied his ill older brother to Cuba. They were hoping the tropical climate would improve his brother’s health, but it “had the opposite effect: arriving in Havana, the Tudor brothers were quickly overwhelmed by the muggy weather.” They reversed course, but the summer heat chased them back to the American South, and Frederic longed for the cooler climes of New England. That experience “suggested a radical — some would say preposterous — idea to young Frederic Tudor: if he could somehow transport ice from the frozen north to the West Indies, there would be an immense market for it.”

“In a country where at some seasons of the year the heat is almost unsupportable,” Tudor wrote in his journal, “ice must be considered as outdoing most other luxuries.”

Tudor’s folly

Imagine what an early 19th-century version of Khrushchev would have said to the future Ice King. People throughout the world go hungry, and you, Mr. Tudor, want to introduce frozen desserts to the tropics? What of beef? What of butter? The capitalists chase profits rather than producing the necessities.

It’s true that Tudor was pursuing profits, but his idea of ice outdoing “most other luxuries” looked to his contemporaries more like chasing folly than fortune.

The Boston Gazette reported on one of his first shiploads of New England ice: “No joke. A vessel with a cargo of 80 tons of Ice has cleared out from this port for Martinique. We hope this will not prove to be a slippery speculation.”

And at first the skeptics seemed right. Tudor “did manage to make some ice cream,” Johnson tells us. And that impressed a few of the locals. “But the trip was ultimately a complete failure.” The novelty of imported ice was just too novel. Why supply ice where there was simply no demand?

You can’t put a price on failure

In the early 20th century, economists Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, after years of debate with the Marxists, finally began to convince advocates of socialist central planning that market prices were essential to the rational allocation of scarce resources. Some socialist theorists responded with the idea of using capitalist market prices as a starting point for the central planners, who could then simulate the process of bidding for goods, thereby replacing real markets with an imitation that they believed would be just as good. Capitalism would then be obsolete, an unfortunate stage in the development of greater social justice.

By 1959, Khrushchev could claim, however questionably, that Soviet refrigerators were just as good as the American variety — except for a few frivolous features. But there wouldn’t have been any Soviet fridges at all if America hadn’t led the way in artificial refrigeration, starting with Tudor’s folly a century and a half earlier. If the central planners had been around in 1806 when the Boston Gazette poked fun at Tudor’s slippery speculation, what prices would they have used as the starting point for future innovation? All the smart money was in other ventures, and Tudor was on his way to losing his family’s fortune and landing in debtor’s prison.

Only through stubborn persistence did Tudor refine his idea and continue to innovate while demand slowly grew for what he had to offer.

“Still pursued by his creditors,” Johnson writes, Tudor

began making regular shipments to a state-of-the-art icehouse he had built in Havana, where an appetite for ice cream had been slowly maturing. Fifteen years after his original hunch, Tudor’s ice trade had finally turned a profit. By the 1820s, he had icehouses packed with frozen New England water all over the American South. By the 1830s, his ships were sailing to Rio and Bombay. (India would ultimately prove to be his most lucrative market.)

The world the Ice King made

In the winter of 1846–47, Henry David Thoreau watched a crew of Tudor’s ice cutters at work on Walden Pond.

Thoreau wrote, “The sweltering inhabitants of Charleston and New Orleans, of Madras and Bombay and Calcutta, drink at my well.… The pure Walden water is mingled with the sacred water of the Ganges.”

When Tudor died in 1864, Johnson tells us, he “had amassed a fortune worth more than $200 million in today’s dollars.”

The Ice King had also changed the fortunes of all Americans, and reshaped the country in the process. Khrushchev would later care about butter and beef, but before refrigerated train cars — originally cooled by natural ice — it didn’t matter how much meat and dairy an area could produce if it could only be consumed locally without spoiling. And only with the advent of the home icebox could families keep such products fresh. Artificial refrigeration created the modern city by allowing distant farms to feed the growing urban populations.

A hundred years after the Boston Gazette reported what turned out to be Tudor’s failed speculation, the New York Times would run a very different headline: “Ice Up to 40 Cents and a Famine in Sight”:

Not in sixteen years has New York faced such an iceless prospect as this year. In 1890 there was a great deal of trouble and the whole country had to be scoured for ice. Since then, however, the needs for ice have grown vastly, and a famine is a much more serious matter now than it was then.

“In less than a century,” Johnson observes, “ice had gone from a curiosity to a luxury to a necessity.”

The world that luxury made

Before modern markets, Mises tells us, the delay between luxury and necessity could take centuries, but “from its beginnings, capitalism displayed the tendency to shorten this time lag and finally to eliminate it almost entirely. This is not a merely accidental feature of capitalistic production; it is inherent in its very nature.” That’s why everyone today carries a smartphone — and in a couple of years, almost every wrist will bear a smartwatch.

The Cold War is over, and Khrushchev is no longer around to scoff, but the Kitchen Debate continues as the most visible commercial innovations produce “mere gadgets.” Less visible is the steady progress in the necessities, including the innovations we didn’t know were necessary because we weren’t imagining the future they would bring about. Even less evident are all the failures. We talk of profits, but losses drive innovation forward, too.

It’s easy to admire the advances that so clearly improve lives: ever lower infant mortality, ever greater nutrition, fewer dying from deadly diseases. It’s harder to see that the larger system of innovation is built on the quest for comfort, for entertainment, for what often looks like decadence. But the long view reveals that an innovator’s immediate goals don’t matter as much as the system that promotes innovation in the first place.

Even if we give Khrushchev the benefit of the doubt and assume that he really did care about feeding the masses and satisfying the most basic human needs, it’s clear the Soviet premier had no idea how economic development works. Progress is not driven by producing ever more butter; it is driven by ice cream.


B.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is managing editor of the Freeman.

Real Hero Peter Fechter: The Berlin Wall and Those Who Refused to Be Caged by Lawrence W. Reed

For the 28 years from 1961 to 1989, the ghastly palisade known as the Berlin Wall divided the German city of Berlin. It sealed off the only escape hatch for people in the communist East who wanted freedom in the West.

No warning was given before August 13 when East German soldiers and police first stretched barbed wire and then began erecting the infamous wall, not to mention guard towers, dog runs, and explosive devices behind it.

By one estimate, 254 people died there during those 28 years — shot by police, ensnared by the barbed wire, mauled by dogs, or blown to bits by land mines — most of them in the infamous “death strip” that immediately paralleled the main barrier. The communist regime cynically referred to it as the “Anti-Fascist Protection Wall.”

In my home hangs a large, framed copy of a famous photo of a poignant moment from that sad day in 1961. It shows a young, apprehensive East German soldier glancing about as he prepares to let a small boy pass through the emerging barrier. No doubt the boy spent the night with friends and found himself the next morning on the opposite side of the wall from his family. But the communist government ordered its men to let no one pass. The inscription below the photo explains that, at this very moment, the soldier was seen by a superior officer who immediately detached him from his unit. “No one,” reads the inscription, “knows what became of him.” Only the most despicable tyrants could punish a man for letting a child get to his loved ones, but in the Evil Empire, that and much worse happened all the time.

Like millions of others, a strapping 18-year-old bricklayer named Peter Fechter yearned for so much more than the stifling dreariness of socialism. He hatched a plan with a friend, Helmut Kulbeik, to conceal themselves in a carpenter’s woodshop near the wall and watch for an opportune moment to jump from a second-story window into the death strip. They would then run to and climb over the 6½ foot high concrete barrier, laced with barbed wire, and emerge in freedom on the other side.

It was August 17, 1962, barely a year since the Berlin Wall went up, but Fechter and Kulbeik were ready to risk everything. When the moment came that guards were looking the other way, they jumped. Seconds later, during their mad dash to the wall, guards began firing. Amazingly, Kulbeik made it to freedom. Fechter was not so lucky. In the plain view of witnesses numbering in the hundreds, he was hit in the pelvis. He fell, screaming in pain, to the ground.

No one on the East side, soldiers included, came to his aid. Westerners threw bandages over the wall but Fechter couldn’t reach them. Bleeding profusely, he died alone, an hour later. Demonstrators in West Berlin shouted, “Murderers!” at the East Berlin border guards, who eventually retrieved his lifeless body.

Christine Brecht, writing on the Berlin Wall Memorial website, reveals subsequent events involving the Fechter family:

In addition to the painful loss of their only son, the family of the deceased was subjected to reprisals from the East German government for decades. In July 1990 Peter Fechter’s sister pressed charges that opened preliminary proceedings and that ultimately ended in the conviction of two guards. Found guilty of manslaughter, they were sentenced to 20 and 21 months in prison, a sentence that was commuted to probation. During the main proceedings, Ruth Fechter, the victim’s younger sister who served as a joint plaintiff in the trial, expressed herself through her attorneys. They explained that she thought it important to speak out, to no longer be “damned by passivity and inactivity” and to get out of “the objectified role that she had been put in until then.” She movingly described how she and her family experienced the tragic death of her brother and had felt powerless to act against his public defamation. They had been sworn to secrecy, an involuntary obligation that put the family under tremendous pressure. “We were ostracized and experienced hostile encounters daily. They were not born of our personal desire, but were instead imposed on us by others, becoming a central element in the life of the Fechter Family.” After all those years, participating in the trial as a joint plaintiff offered Ruth Fechter an opportunity to participate in the effort to explain, research and evaluate the circumstances of her brother’s death. And she added that the legal perspective occasionally overlooks the fact that in this case “world history fatally intersected with the fate of a single individual.”

The world must never forget this awful chapter in history. Nor should we ever forget that it was done in the name of a vicious system that declared its “solidarity with the working class” and professed its devotion to “the people.”

We who embrace liberty don’t believe in shooting people because they don’t conform, and that is ultimately what socialism and communism are all about. We don’t plan other people’s lives because we’re too busy at the full-time job of reforming and improving our own. We believe in persuasion, not coercion. We solve problems at penpoint, not gunpoint. We’re never so smugly self-righteous in our beliefs that we’re ready at the drop of a hat to dragoon the rest of society into our schemes.

All this is why so many of us get a rush every time we think of Ronald Reagan standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 1987 and demanding, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” This is why we were brought to tears in the heady days of 1989 when thousands of Berliners scaled the Wall with their hammers, picks, and fists and pummeled that terrible edifice and the Marxist vision that fostered it.

Peter Fechter and the 253 others who died at the Berlin Wall are real heroes. They deserve to be remembered.

For further information, see:


Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s.

EDITORS NOTE: Each week, Mr. Reed will relate the stories of people whose choices and actions make them heroes. See the table of contents for previous installments.

Soviet Socialism in the 21st Century: A Malignant regime of Political Correctness

Don’t you think that Political Correctness is getting people killed? I believe it does. If you are watching the discussions on TV and radio today, you will be overwhelmed by the variety of opinions on how to deal with Terrorism, Ebola, ISIS, Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine. Yet, all the participant doctors, generals, politicians, and journalists are missing the major topic, the root cause of all events – Russia and its Political Correctness. Do you know the significance of the subject? Do you have an idea of the author and architect of it? We, the people who immigrated from Russia and other former Socialist countries know well Political Correctness – we lived through it half of our adult lives.

Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design and a long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.

When my language allowed me to grasp current politics, I was stunned by how deeply rooted Political Correctness was in America. How could that happen? Where was the usual common sense of the nation? Where were all American intelligence agencies? If logically Knowledge is Power, unfortunately, as a result of Political Correctness, today Ignorance reins in America… And that makes me angry, because I have spent twenty-five years of my life and money to give you needed knowledge about Russia to warn you, but our Intelligence Service sabotaged my books and my numerous articles to block the information conveyed in them. Yet nothing can stop me in my mission to provide you with the Truth, because I believe in an upcoming major American re-awakening.

So, you are perhaps asking yourself: What does Political Correctness has to do with Ebola, the military, or with everyday life of the American people?

It has to do with everything and it affects the life of each citizen of America, because Political Correctness is a central part of the ongoing WW III. To present a credible explanation, I had to go to the internet to find a linguistic and historical definition of Political Correctness. It was not an easy task: the vast majority of people from academia presented only a surface commentary and a vague interpretation on the matter. Finally, I found more or less close to reality explanation of political correctness that gave the concept itself and the time of the history it was born. Timing is the key issue to comprehend the subject: “In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase ‘Politically Correct’ were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists.”

In order to have an understanding of the topic, you have to know the Soviet History of those days, the real history, not the history presented in the Soviet books.

As you know, I am a child of Stalinism, I lived through that history. The timing–”In the early–to mid 20th century” is telling you almost everything— at the time, Stalin was building his cult of personality and one party system in the country. All the methods and devices were directed to those goals… For your information, Russia had numerous political parties in the early 20th century. After Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin began the immediate elimination of a political opposition–leaders and people from different parties with political agendas contrary to his. Nobody could compete with him in the art of double-dealing and intrigues. Trotsky was the first target and he was exiled by 1927. The liquidation of other leaders was going on full speed. I do not need to present the list of them, the history of that time is telling you the methods, tools, and devises the Stalinist regime used to liquidate millions – Show Trials, Purges, imprisonments, Gulags, deportations to Siberia and Central Asia, and many other horrifying methods.

I was a tiny girl, when my Mother was imprisoned. At the time I did not know politics and I loved Stalin, but later, somewhere in the end of the forties or in the beginning of the fifties, thanks to my Father, my political education had begun. The radio was the only source of information for the masses of people; it was on in our room from early morning to a late evening. The entire country was sitting frozen, listening to Stalin speak, being afraid of missing a word from his speech. So, I too was listening to Stalin. I knew his voice well, the timbre and the manner of developing the address very slowly. Listening to the radio one day I heard Stalin using some strange words spoken by a very different intonation and tone. I cannot tell you the exact year and time of a day; I remember only the strange and unusual, to me, intonation in his voice. The phrase was very simple: “those Comrades are politically incorrect.” The intonation in his voice kind of surprised me; it was a combination of threat and sarcasm at the same time. Perhaps for this reason I remember the phrase. It stayed in my mind for a long time, however not knowing the political system of human liberty, I was unable to identify the exact meaning of the term.

If you haven’t read my books, to conceive the predicament we lived in, please just remember, that we lived in a highly centralized, one party system of total corruption in the vertical of power. All Soviet media was the property of the government; there was not a single private or independent source of information in the country. Each media unit had Department of Agitation and Propaganda and censorship. The Russian writer of the time Lidia Chukovskay wrote about our lives that we were indeed “poisoned by lethal gas” of lies and deception. She was right. To indoctrinate us in the Stalinist ideology, an arsenal of different devices was used: lies, fraud, deceit, distortion, fabrication, perjury, and so on to substitute the promising result with a process…

At the time, the predicament in Russia was so constant that I did not know how to evaluate, explain and identify the system we lived under. I knew that it was the central part of the ideology, a modus operandi in our lives, when perverted truth was putting logic up-side-down. That way Russia became a model of goodness and America became a rotten country. If at the beginning Political Correctness served as a method of fighting political oppositions, the ultimate goal was much wider–mind control, manipulation of human psyche in a variety of its methods.

Only after coming to America I was able to grasp the essence of the lethal matter – Political Correctness designed by Stalin. So, living in America, I began searching for the first official indication of the use of the term Political Correctness in Russia. The internet allowed me to go far back in political history of the world. However, my understanding of politics in America began with the Presidency of Ronald Reagan and the first surprise came with Bill Clinton–he lived in Russia with a family of KGB members. That told me a lot. Unfortunately; his presidency was not firmly investigated. You can read about my suspicions in the Epilogue, What is Happening to America?, Xlibris, 2012. In Clinton’s politics, I found a lot of methods that could have been qualified as a policy of Political Correctness with usage of the arsenal of the devices indicated above–the true components of it. Clinton was surrounded by other Democrats resembling the Soviet Mafia a great deal. That told me that the transformation of the Democrats had started before Clinton….I had to go back in history to find the first official usage of the term Political Correctness.

Meanwhile, being in the process of writing my second book The Russian Factor: From Cold War to Global Terrorism, Xlibris, 2006, I had attempted to present the concept of Political Correctness, I called it–Sovietization of America. My American friends asked me what it meant Sovietization. So the term remained in dark. It took me many months to find the first official usage of the term Political Correctness. I wasn’t successful in my search; internet did not give me the answer. The answer came quite unexpectedly. My favorite TV show is Jeopardy, I try not to miss any of them. Watching the show a couple of months ago, I got the answer. The participants couldn’t answer the question and the anchor gave the answer: the first time the words Political Correctness were published by the Soviet official newspaper Izvestia in 1933. I jumped as if cold water had awakened me–the answer came in such a simple way! The time was correctly identified by the Encyclopedia! The answer also confirmed my vision of Political Correctness. The year 1933 was a preparation to Show Trials and Purges, as you know, no one governmental newspaper could publish the words of a new policy without Stalin’s awareness or by his order.

Moreover, knowing Stalin’s connection to the Muslim culture, his long-term strategy had included Islam as a vehicle and physical doer in implementing Political Correctness. Please, remember the words of the KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov in1972 about a mechanism of training and turning the Muslims into the arms of Stalin’s strategy. The Soviets were very successful in using them in WWIII–today Jihad is an ideological movement around the world. I believe, I am right–Stalin is the author of Political Correctness and to prove his long-term strategy, let me give you the document confirming that. If you haven’t read my books, but know the history, here is the official Soviet document with my small preamble to it.

At the end the 1940, after the Germany’s defeat, Stalin gave an order to the KGB and the military to study the effects of drugs on human psyche. The effects of drugs were analyzed by scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the conclusions were that the drugs trafficking would be extremely effective and the most vulnerable countries would be the United States, Canada, France, and West Germany. This study was approved in 1955 by the Soviet Defense Council. It was the first formal Soviet decision to launch narcotics trafficking against the bourgeoisie and especially against the American capitalists. Here is the document:

“Soviet strategy for revolutionary war is a global strategy… narcotics strategy is a sub-component of this global strategy. …First was the increased training of leaders for the revolutionary movements—the civilian, military, and intelligence cadres. The founding of Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow is an example of one of the early actions taken to modernize the Soviet revolutionary leadership training. The second step was the actual training of terrorists. Training for international terrorism actually began as ‘fighters for liberation.’ …The third step was international drug and narcotics trafficking. Drugs were incorporated into the revolutionary war strategy as a political and intelligence weapon to use against the bourgeois society and as a mechanism for recruiting agents of influence around the world.” p.128 What is Happening to America?, by Simona Pipko, Xlibris, 2012.

There were the fourth and fifth steps in the strategy, you can read about both and see when an undeclared war began. Please pay attention to the words:” recruiting agents of influence.” Do you know how many of them have been recruited in the last 60 years? To answer the question, you should know who is practicing Political Correctness and all components of it. In this respect, it is important to remember what party was against the Soviet politics, and what party was soft on it. The Democrats were not only soft to the Soviets for a long time, moreover, they have employed the components of Political Correctness and used them against the Republicans very successfully for the last forty-fifty years. By their softness and incompetence they gave the opportunity to the Soviet Mafia to grow and spread the venom of ideology across the world, to Balkanize America and the globe. This is the reason we are witnessing dramatic changes in our culture and within the Democratic Party–the party of President Truman is dead…Do you know what ideology the Democrats are adhered today?

Unfortunately, the politicians and our Media are focused on ideology and the agenda of Saul Alinsky, who is only one example of an agent of influence on the surface. In fact, there are thousands of them, spreading and implementing the Stalinist concept. Look at our culture: what we used to define as the greatness of America now is under a siege–the heroes became criminals now, the criminals became heroes.

Remember the essence and devices of Political Correctness:

“[T]o propagate us in Stalinist ideology an arsenal of different devices has been used: lies, fraud, deceit, distortion, fabrication, perjury, and so on to substitute the promised result with the process.”

Just look at the Obama administration and you will find the exact formula of the Stalinist Political Correctness in the 21st century.

If you remember, I have already introduced you to the Obama/Putin joined venture named Destruction of the American Republic. Do you know that people from former Soviet Republics are joining ISIS? The field commanders of ISIS are Chechen or the former Saddam’s security operatives, both were trained by the Russian security forces. Did you notice a pattern of being late to many important issues of our days by Obama? ISIS, Syria, Iraq, Iran, IRS, Benghazi, Ukraine: You know the list of the so-called scandals in Washington. In fact, those events are the components of ideology working against the interests of America. And again as you can see; Putin is up, and America is down. Obama is not lazy, stupid or incompetent, as some suggested, on the contrary he is very successful in his joined venture implementing Political Correctness. Just watch!

The last event is Ebola, a threat known since March 2014. It is a real danger to America and the entire world–a mortality rate is 70%, according to World Health Organizations. The disease requires fast and decisive actions by the government. Instead you will see a continuation of Political Correctness: Ron Klain, a man from the Clinton political circle, a political operative, without any background in medicine has been appointed as the Ebola Czar in October, 2014. The task of the administration is to enforce loyalty to the Obama Democratic Party not the health of the Americans. A logical response to the predicament is a travel ban to America from West Africa countries, but it is still only on discussion, when the time is a matter of life and death. A highly qualified specialist-epidemiologists must be involved in the process. Even Nigeria stopped the epidemic of Ebola by enforcing quarantine–a travel ban.

For those who blame America for instability in the world, I would recommend to read my books and articles to learn about a real aggressor and a sponsor of global terrorism–Russia. Mr. Romney was right in 2012, naming Russia as our geopolitical foe No.1. Fortunately, NATO begins to grasp some truth about Russia, the truth, I have been writing about for the last twenty-five years. Please read Financial Times, Friday August 29, 2014: Russia’s new art of war.

“NATO has struggled to counter Moscow’s tactics in a conflict where traditional military force is only one part of the fight…” NATO is still underestimated the role of Political Correctness–that insidious evil of the world…

The midterm election in November is upcoming and I’d like to point out some politicians who are taking our country in the wrong direction and blaming everybody else for their mistakes. Look at Obama, Charlie Christ, Al Sharpton, the leader of the Democrats “poor Debby,” and many others. They are constantly changing their minds and definition of words. Incompetent and arrogant, they are frequently lying to survive politically. They are promising the successful results for six years; you know that they failed in all aspects of our lives; foreign policy, economy, education, national security, social tranquility, job creation, and so on. They are lying to us like good salesmen. Do you know what they are selling? Don’t you think that they replicate the Stalinist strategy and surrender to the New World Order and One World Government?

Political Correctness cannot be spread by air or wind–people do that. My heart bleeds for my America. To prevent a catastrophe, I want to punish evil and heal our land. That is the reason I am writing about the Party called Democratic. Dr.Martin King Jr. was a Republican and so Frederick Douglass, who said; ”It’s not about color: it’s about values. ”Yes, it’s about values and, in this respect, I’d like to give you very important information to think about…

Another Russian author Daniel Estulin had written a book titled: The True Story of the Bilderberg Group. On page 52 of this book, I learned that on June 9, 1991, two-and-a half months before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Presidency, Bill Clinton flew to Moscow and had a meeting with the KGB Chairman. The Arkansas Democrat ran the story under the headline “Clinton Has Powerful Buddy in the U.S.S.R.—New Head of KGB. Do not be surprised as Clinton helps Obama in the upcoming election–they are adhered to the same ideology and have the same political agenda.

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com

Back from the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire

Below is a book cover I designed last month for Cliff Kincaid’s Back from the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire written by him and three other authors. The book is now on Amazon.
Stalin_Poster_300.jpg
I modeled it on an iconic Stalin-era poster, changing Stalin to Putin and adding a peeling tri-color flag of the new Russia. The bad Soviet paint that had been hastily brushed over the old flag in the 1990s is now falling off in big clumps, revealing the solid red USSR flag with the hammer and sickle.

Putin is wearing a WWII-era St. Georgi ribbon on his chest, as do his murderous agents in the east of Ukraine today, falsely comparing their supremacist warfare on the independent Ukraine to WWII.

Since the old Evil Empire has now returned from its shallow grave, it is only appropriate that Putin would tower over a crowd of “undead” brainless followers. I had been tempted to sprinkle this gathering of zombies with the faces of modern Russian politicians and public figures, but they wouldn’t be recognizable in America anyway. The only face I couldn’t resist adding was that of Alexander Dugin (the bearded ghoul on the right), whose monstrous theories of Nazi-like national-chauvinism are fueling Russia’s modern supremacist movement, which Putin is so cleverly exploiting.

I got a complimentary copy of the book in today’s mail; it looks great and I can’t wait to read it. Here’s a synopsis from America’s Survival website.

A new book — Back from the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire – exposes how America’s political leaders and intelligence agencies were caught off-guard as Vladimir Putin brought back the USSR, invaded Ukraine, and now threatens the world with a conflict that Putin’s apologists say could go nuclear.

The back cover and spine back from the dead

The back cover and spine. For a larger view click on the image.

The fall of the Berlin Wall misled many into thinking the Soviet KGB was dead. But infiltration of the West continued through “cultural Marxism,” and penetration by enemy agents, while the KGB, now called the FSB, looted Russia, consolidated its power, and rebuilt the Russian military, including its nuclear forces. America’s survival hangs in the balance.

Cliff Kincaid, founder and president of America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI), is a journalist and media analyst based in the Washington, D.C. area for almost 40 years and contributes one of the chapters in the new book. Other chapters are written by former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky and anti-communist analysts J.R. Nyquist and Toby Westerman. ASI has published the book, available on the website usasurvival.org and through Amazon.com

“Having fled from the Putin regime, Preobrazhensky understands modern-day Russia,” Kincaid said. “Analysts Nyquist and Westerman were writing about the return of Soviet military power under Putin at a time when Obama and Hillary were arranging a Russian policy ‘reset’ and Congress passed trade benefits for Russia.”

In reaction to assertions by some American conservatives such as Patrick J. Buchanan that Vladimir Putin is a Christian leader, Kincaid said that “We expose these claims as Russian disinformation, perhaps the greatest deception of all time.” The book describes in detail how Putin is using the Russian Orthodox Church as an ideological front in his war on the world, and how the Roman Catholic Church has failed to confront this evil. The book also examines how the KGB/FSB secretly manipulates Islamic and Palestinian terrorist groups and even the Iranian regime.

I have already made two book covers for Mr. Kincaid in the past, see them here.

back from the dead book cover

For a larger view click on the book cover.

Cheating Commies and Guardian Syndrome by Max Borders

Why were the East Germans more likely to cheat?

In a recent Economist piece called “Lying Commies,” the authors report:

“Under capitalism”, ran the old Soviet-era joke, “man exploits man. Under communism it is just the opposite.” In fact new research suggests that the Soviet system inspired not just sarcasm but cheating too: in East Germany, at least, communism appears to have inculcated moral laxity.

Lars Hornuf of the University of Munich and Dan Ariely, Ximena García-Rada and Heather Mann of Duke University ran an experiment last year to test Germans’ willingness to lie for personal gain. Some 250 Berliners were randomly selected to take part in a game where they could win up to €6 ($8).

The findings?

After finishing the game, the players had to fill in a form that asked their age and the part of Germany where they had lived in different decades. The authors found that, on average, those who had East German roots cheated twice as much as those who had grown up in West Germany under capitalism. They also looked at how much time people had spent in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The longer the participants had been exposed to socialism, the greater the likelihood that they would claim improbable numbers of high rolls.

But the authors make no attempt to explain why this is so. As you can see, they write: “The study reveals nothing about the nature of the link between socialism and dishonesty.”

Might we find at least clues to an answer in the work of Jane Jacobs? Specifically, in Systems of Survival, she offers the following heuristic to show us how different people arrive at different types of moral frameworks depending on how the incentives systems are set up to benefit their survival. (I would add that these moral “syndromes” are also good psychological dispositions for shoring up hierarchies or transitioning to networks, respectively.)

                              Moral Precepts

     Guardian Syndrome      Commerce Syndrome
Shun trading

Exert prowess

Be obedient and disciplined

Adhere to tradition

Respect hierarchy

Be loyal

Take vengeance

Deceive for the sake of the task

Make rich use of leisure

Be ostentatious

Dispense largesse

Be exclusive

Show fortitude

Be fatalistic

Treasure honor

Shun force

Compete

Be efficient

Be open to inventiveness and novelty

Use initiative and enterprise

Come to voluntary agreements

Respect contracts

Dissent for the sake of the task

Be industrious

Be thrifty

Invest for productive purposes

Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens

Promote comfort and convenience

Be optimistic

Be honest

Notice anything about guardian syndrome that unpacks both the behavior of East German socialists, as well as those involved in politics and bureaucratic hierarchies in general?

MaxBordersVEsmlABOUT MAX BORDERS

Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also co-founder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

Soviet Socialism in the 21st century: Putin and a Missing Jet

The words “Putin and a Missing Jet” are not mine; they belong to Bill O’Reilly, The O’Reilly Factor, Fox New. On March 26, 2014, announcing the next segment, Mr. O’Reilly  whom I enormously respect, had pronounced these five words: Putin and a missing jet. When I heard them my pulse went up—O’Reilly agrees with me, he is connecting Putin and a missing jet! Alas, I was wrong. It was just the announcement for two separate events: Russian invasion of Ukraine and a missing MH 370. Yet, I continue thinking that all recent negative events in the world, including mudslides in Washington State and an earthquake in California are connected.

If you are watching closely the reports of the world affairs in March 2014, you can grasp a strange metamorphose: the Russian invasion of Ukraine became a secondary story –MH 370 was captivating the world. This is a Red Flag!

Diverting public attention is well familiar to me. Of course, the search for the Malaysian 370 must go on vigorously until we know the cause of the mystery. It is exactly three weeks into the search and nobody can predict the outcome. We have lost 329 human souls and the world is responsible to continue an intensive search to know the Truth. Why? Because I believe it was a man-made disaster.

I have already introduced the Department of Agitation and Propaganda and its methods of operation, run by the KGB. Now it is the time to obtain finally a real understanding of the Russian Intelligence apparatus. Writing a series of articles three years ago, I warned the readers of a strange silence about Russia in our media and added—we will pay a dear price for our ignorance. Today, in March, 2014 all my warnings are coming true. We are paying a dear price being the witnesses to the terrible events in the world: Annexation of Crimea by Russia, our inability to solve mystery of Malaysian 370 for a month, and an overwhelming, drastic degradation within Western civilization.

I still continue to see a logical connection between these current realities. Why? Because I know WWIII is upon us and you should know it too.

The description of WWIII is in my article published on March 17, 2014. To grasp the realities of our days, you ought to be familiar with the history of Russian Intelligence apparatus, presented in my two last books. To analyze a global predicament and geography of negative events, we need knowledge. Chapter 7 of my last book had been entitled WWIII: Recruitments and Drugs, Infiltration and AssassinationsI wrote that ten years ago, warning you.

Jirnov_carte_kgb

Scan of first KGB card.

I am a former defense attorney and when I watched the anguish and heard the desperate cries of the grieving families in China and Malaysia, the memory of my clients in Russia, flashed through my mind—people’s grieving is similar regardless of the geography. Do you see how the search for MH 370 becomes political issue? The geography and ideology play a major role in the 21st century, because both are the driving force in Putin’s attempt to reconstruct the Soviet Union, which means, restoring the Stalin’s Russia, considering the KGB’s absolute power in Russia today.

If you think that contemporary Russia is a capitalist country like America or England, you are wrong.

The KGB, run by Putin has created a new type of economy, I called it—Crony Capitalism. It has nothing to do with your knowledge of Capitalism: no competition, no free market, instead the entirety of Russian wealth is in the hands of Putin’s friends, we called them—Oligarchs. And this is my warning, yet again. In the preceding articles I wrote about an ideological fraud, of which Russian Crony Capitalism is an inextricable part of it.

Do you remember how I characterize the Russian KGB’s apparatus as a Doer of Stalin’s policy? Yet to talk about a brutal force of the KGB is not enough; I’d like to give you two examples so you can comprehend my thought-process. One example is a tragic event that took place in 1979, the other a tragedy was in 2012. I am doing that to show you the history of Russian intentions and motivations, in case you have already forgotten, it was Stalin who planned the One World Government under the Kremlin’s auspices.

Some years ago, I watched a TV Documentary Jonestown, CNN. Sitting frozen, I couldn’t believe my eyes. It was a miniature picture of the Stalinist slave-labor camp with overwhelming fear, secrecy, physical abuse, lies, and indoctrination of the Socialist ideas. At the same time the words like dignity and economic equality for the proletariat were used to mesmerize and seduce the audience—a wonderful socialist utopia. Those words were so familiar to me that the similarity had stunned me. The tragic end in Jonestown with hundreds of dead bodies on the ground and 300 dead children made me sick and angry.  Who could perpetrate such a horrible crime against innocent Americans, poisoning them with cyanide?

Researching the story of the Jonestown tragedy I have found several interesting facts. The leader of the movement, who perpetrated the ultimate crime, Rev. Jim Jones was a pastor who established the Peoples Temple—a cult in California. Eloquent and smart, operating with false but appealing terms, he attracted a substantial group of Blacks and Whites who had believed in his propaganda and they followed him to Guyana. He had help from several organizers, as well. It was there in Guyana, far from the American authorities where the unspeakable crime took place.

I see the Jonestown tragedy as a disaster orchestrated by the KGB—the test of the “naïve and gullible” Americans. Do you remember how the KGB’s Chairman Andropov characterized the people of America? Analyzing all aspects of the Jonestown events, you will find all the elements of the Stalinist cult of personality, schooling indoctrination and training, a typical attempt of mind control.

Can you imagine my feeling when I heard a Jonestown’s survivor’s story? He told that the people of Jonestown had to study the Russian language and he, the survivor had an assignment: Rev. Jim Jones asked him to bring a suitcase with money to the Russian Embassy in Guyana. That is why he survived. I hope you can arrive to a real conclusion after reading the first example. Before giving you a second example, please remember that Putin and Obama are adhered to the same ideology—both want to weaken America.

Have you seen James Rosen from Fox News reporting on Surrendering America? Please watch it. Fox presented vivid evidence of Putin’s and Obama’s unity in action better than I could ever do.

After that preamble, I can give you the second example. Almost two years had past since the murder of our Ambassador in Benghazi. Numerous investigations had no decisive answer. Several House Committees have investigated the Benghazi terrorist attack and there will be another investigative session on March 31, 2014. Only knowledge of Stalinist ideology coupled with the KGB’s activities can produce an understanding of the tragedy in Benghazi. A year ago, I wrote a letter to my Republican friends, here is the part about Benghazi:

“Benghazi was a pre-planned operation to Liquidate Ambassador Stevens to cover up transfer of arms to help the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. This was a joint operation of the Russian Intelligence and the Muslim forces trained by Russia. The attack started immediately after Mr. Stevens finished his supper with a Turkish officer. Put together three facts to see the event clear: a) Benghazi was known as a very dangerous territory, b) the 9/11 day is known worldwide as a date of the attack by the terrorists. c) Someone was taking pictures of the consulate in Benghazi. The question is: why did Obama send Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi on 9//11 with a very questionable mission? The answer is simple—to get rid of the witness of the crime. By the way it is a typical of Stalinist’s to liquidate a person who knows too much.”

This paragraph will be understood by those who know Stalinism, the KGB, and the background of the Muslim Brotherhood…

To be continued. Please visit: www.simonapipko1.com

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Piotr Drabik. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.