Different Symptoms, Same Paranoia
Russia Too Had Yeltsin Derangement Syndrome
Lessons for the American progressives: Part One | Part Two
Lesson 1 - The August Putsch
On August 19 1991 I was on my way back home in the Ukraine from a visit to the United States. The imperial U.S.S.R. was in place, and although draconian restrictions on visiting capitalist countries had been removed, the average monthly income of about $20 US deterred foreign travel as effectively as the barbed wire before that. In the provincial Ukrainian town where I lived, visiting America was a big deal. Most neighbors in my apartment complex knew where I had been. I knew they were expecting me to tell the story.
But as I dragged my bags to the entrance that day, my neighbors gave me sullen stares. "Go back where you came from," one of them said. "Do it before they close the airports." I asked what was going on. "You'll know when you turn on the TV," he said. He was right. The rest of the evening I spent sitting on my unpacked suitcase as I gaped at the TV screen.
Both government-run channels showed nine Communist Party apparatchiks at a long conference table, talking to the camera, telling me that the democracy in the U.S.S.R. had failed, that capitalism was a menace, that freedom had brought nothing but disaster. Tanks were being moved to Moscow to ensure a peaceful "progress" back to Stalinism. The hard-liners had counted on the tormented people's conditional reflex to obey their overlords. They called themselves GKChP - the "Government State of Emergency Committee," but people immediately dubbed them a junta and called their coup a "putsch" - as in Hitler's failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. Instead of meekly surrendering, the people resisted.
Nothing in the Party stooges' prior experience prepared them for the sudden resistance of the people who had tasted freedom. And at the forefront of that resistance towered Boris Yeltsin, Russia's first freely elected president.
"The best Gorbachev could do was shoot a home video."
Technically Russia was still one of the 15 Soviet republics reporting to Michael Gorbachev, but Gorby had been trapped in his dacha down at the Black Sea. At that point the best Gorbachev could do was shoot a home video. He fired a message to the world using a camcorder and an old tape with a copy of the 9 1/2 Weeks movie, recording his mournful face over the naked shots of Kim Basinger.
Yeltsin and his supporters resisted the putsch directly. They barricaded themselves inside the Parliament Building. A human wall made of thousands of Muscovites encircled the white multistoried structure to which they jokingly referred as the White House. I regretted I wasn't in Moscow but it was not possible to get there. The coup leaders had had enough forethought to suspend passenger transportation in and out of the capital. If they hadn't the human shields would count in hundreds of thousands, standing in the way of the army to protect their new freedoms. But the army was made of people too; some tank units disobeyed orders and joined the protesters.
Three young men still were crushed by the tanks - a Russian, a Ukrainian, and a Jew. After three days of standoffs, rioting, mutinies, and courageous anti-coup coverage by pro-democracy journalists, the coup was over. Gorbachev was restored in Kremlin.
But it wasn't Gorbachev who was the man of the hour. That honor was reserved for Boris Yeltsin. He became an instant people's hero, immortalized in a snapshot on top of a tank with a new tricolor flag of Russia. Euphoric crowds flooded the streets; many were weeping. The specter of communism had been defeated.
"Freedom can't be increased by abusing and disparaging it."
Today's anti-Bush rallies in the U.S. demand the very opposite of what the pro-freedom Soviets rallied for. By advocating for the government control of economy, the ideological monopoly of the Left, and massive redistribution of wealth, American leftists espouse the same ideas as the backward Soviet hardliners - same song, different verse.
These self-absorbed "progressives" don't want to hear about the strife of the Soviet people who had learned the hard way that these ideas only result in massive poverty and loss of freedoms for everyone involved. In effect, the leftist rallies spit in the face of every victim of communist oppression, living or dead. That count is in the hundreds of millions.
There's nothing heroic in disparaging democratic institutions, dishonoring the American flag, and carrying placards with anti-capitalist, anti-American slogans pre-printed for them by communist front groups with the money donated by corrupt foreign dictators. The protesters absurdly accuse this free country of being a fascist dictatorship, fully aware that an hour later they'll be drinking expensive coffee at Starbucks - and not dragged to a political prison and getting their teeth knocked in - a likely prospect for dissidents in the countries whose leaders they idolize.
They may believe their protest leads to more freedom - but freedom can't be increased by abusing and disparaging it. Objectively, they diminish freedom by providing hope and moral support to dictators, helping tyrants to brainwash their populations, and knocking the ground from under the feet of real fighters for freedom. That makes them a tool in the hands of a reactionary totalitarian ideology. As if supporting communist dictatorships were not enough, "progressive" rallies now also feature slogans backing the Iranian regime that imprisons and tortures its own dissidents.
"Journalistic courage is in risking imprisonment
or even death for speaking against a real tyrant -
not in peddling fabricated documents
from a comfortable TV studio in Manhattan"
Every immigrant in this country who had experienced political tyranny understands that true heroism is in standing for freedom and human rights against a real blood-stained dictatorship - not against an America that gives the hope of freedom to all those suffering from tyranny worldwide. Likewise, true journalistic courage is in risking imprisonment or even death for speaking against a real tyrant - not in peddling fabricated documents from a comfortable TV studio in Manhattan with the hope of swinging elections towards a "progressive" candidate.
Just like the corrupt Stalinist apparatchiks, the American leftists will justify anything by invoking the notion of "progress," which in their Orwellian minds is the opposite of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Their utopian ideal of a benevolent government caring for the unwashed masses is nothing but a modernized version of a feudal lord caring for unwashed peasants. That's hardly a progress by any standard.
The true meaning of progress had been long ago encoded into the U.S. Constitution, when the Founding Fathers had broken away from the earlier feudal model where the government cared for its subjects in exchange for their freedoms. Instead, they established a new model where the government's role was to make sure the citizens had enough freedoms to take care of themselves.
This truly revolutionary model is the reason why the United States is so successful; why more than 200 years later it is still leading humanity to a better and happier future. To reverse and dismantle this model will be the opposite of progress - yet it's exactly what the "progressives" seem to crave. Just like the Soviet Politburo stooges, they derive their definition of progress not from the American Revolution, but form Karl Marx's archaic and disgraced Communist Manifesto.
Lesson 2 - Russia Too Had Yeltsin Derangement Syndrome
In October of 1993 Yeltsin led an artillery attack on the Russian Parliament, banned opposition parties, and closed down newspapers that were critical of his rule. Truth or fiction?
Technically, this is not untrue, but neither is it the whole truth. It's similar to the "progressive" cliché that Bush stole the election of 2000, went to war based on lies, undermined America's freedoms at home and its image abroad. To know what really happened in Russia in 1993 we need to understand historical background. The result we discover will fully depend on what sources we choose to trust.
This is where the press comes in. News reporting is often subjective; activist reporting is even worse. Unfortunately the majority of reporters choose to describe reality in a way that in their minds would benefit their ideals of political and cultural "progress." This gives us a skewed picture of events that hampers our ability to understand them. It results in grotesque mistakes, which I can only hope the future historians will be able to undo.
Yeltsin hadn't always been a lionized version of himself - nether before nor after the 1991 events. Like Gorbachev, Yeltsin had achieved prominence as a Party functionary, using the only channel available to gain power and make a difference. In 1987 he raised his voice against the Soviet orthodoxy and resigned from the Party with a loud bang, gaining instant popularity among the huddled masses across the vast Soviet empire. In June of 1991 he became a popularly elected Russian President. Two months later he defeated a coup and became an unquestionable leader who dared give orders to Gorbachev. The imminent disbanding of the Communist Party, the KGB, and other Party-related organizations was soon followed by the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. - a move that cost Yeltsin the support of many Russians.
The Communist Party itself was hardly missed even by its own apparatchiks, most of whom retained commanding positions within the economy, laundering huge amounts of hidden Party cash through the new banks and newly privatized industries. In the largest free-for-all theft in world history, these former "servants of the people" drained Russia dry with corrupt privatization schemes and left the common people with nothing.
The apparatchiks usurped many national newspapers and magazines that used to be the Party's cash cows. Most importantly, they preserved their seats in the Supreme Council (Parliament), elected back in the Soviet days via the usual massive election fraud. Calling that shameless host of Party stooges an "elected body" would be as silly as calling an outhouse full of dung-flies a beehive (no honey on my pancakes, thank you very much). The situation in the other formerly Soviet republics wasn't any better, but that's another story.
The new Russian model that emerged under Yeltsin can best be described as follows: Yeltsin gave the people the freedom to take care of themselves while the middle management stole their means to do so.
The colossal welfare system was mostly dismantled without offering any economic opportunity in return, leaving millions without the bare means of survival. Every emerging business was being fleeced by both the bureaucrats and the booming network of racketeering gangs. The billions of dollars transferred by the new government-affiliated oligarchs to personal Swiss bank accounts roughly equaled the amount of the IMF loan to Russia that was squandered without a trace. To discuss how well-designed the reforms had been would be like arguing about quality of the paintjob on a car that flew off a bridge.
Different symptoms, same paranoia
As if that were not enough, a thriving host of new leftist parties converged with a growing block of ultra-nationalists, all of whom were former card-carrying communists and raving ant-Semitic brownshirts. The resulting National-Bolshevik movement was so similar in its methods and ideology to Hitler's National Socialism that it was easy to imagine living in Germany circa 1933.
This alliance retained control over a number of formerly Party newspapers and magazines that were now actively "uncovering the international Zionist conspiracy against Russia." Every article - be it about nature, food, education, arts, or alcoholism - contained an obligatory Jew-bashing theme, enlightening the nation about how the supernaturally crafty Zionists were plotting to destroy Russia with the help of hirelings like Yeltsin, Gorbachev, or any other potential political opponent.
In their view all Western leaders since the beginning of time were Jewish conspirators. Even the Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish plot to conquer Russia because Lenin and all his comrades were Jews. Like the Swiftian boiled egg scientists, they actually argued among themselves whether Stalin had been a Jewish agent or a hero fighting against the Jewish menace, killed by Jewish doctors. How could they reconcile this with being part of the National-Bolshevik movement?
This won't be so shocking if you consider that Marxism is also, in essence, a vast conspiracy theory explaining how capitalist oppressors have conquered the world and are now controlling the people's minds through cultural hegemony. In the old U.S.S.R., Marxism was branded into people's brains with hot iron, often causing permanent damage. Now the hollow channels vacated by the daily anti-Capitalist propaganda were being filled with new anti-Semitic content. The irrational fear and hatred of the bourgeoisie was now complemented with the irrational fear and hatred of the Jews. The view of world history as the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors was supplanted with the struggle of the oppressed against the worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Different symptoms, same paranoia.
If this sick bit of intellectual legerdemain surprises you, take a look at the recent merger of the Western Left with the anti-Semitic Islamofascism. Most leftist rallies now sport obligatory anti-Israeli slogans, Palestinian kuffiahs, and allegations that the world is ruled by a cabal with strong ties to Israel. That's besides the seething hatred, slurred irrational speech, and verbal attacks that sometimes turn into physical violence. It won't be surprising if the recent Holocaust-denying conference in Iran was attended by prominent National-Bolsheviks from Russia - they'd fit right in with the mad mullahs.
By 1993 the National-Bolshevik ideology found a comfortable home and a base of operations at the stooge-infested Russian parliament. Democracy, capitalism, free markets were all seen as Zionist tricks to enslave and destroy Mother Russia. Their most hated "Zionist agent" was Boris Yeltsin. Hysterical anti-Yeltsin rants and accusations published in the neo-fascist media would make the Bush derangement syndrome of the American media appear like responsible journalism.
These developments could drive an even less vodka-guzzling man towards alcoholism. Yeltsin was gradually getting more drunk and cynical. As the people's trust grew thinner, the resentment of Yeltsin's reforms grew stronger. The loudest critical voices were those of the backseat drivers who had stolen the wheels. Now they tried to use the people's rage to get back into the driver's seat.
Bombing the Parliament
In September of 1993, when Yeltsin pushed for a new set of neoliberal reforms, the Supreme Council revolted. Yeltsin had nothing to lose; he did the world a favor and dissolved the defunct Supreme Council. A large number of the so-called People's Deputies refused to leave. They initiated impeachment proceedings and elected a new acting president. The majority of them were of the National-Bolshevik persuasion, including many old-guard army generals.
They barricaded themselves in the same "White House" from which Yeltsin had opposed the coup in 1991. The building was turned into headquarters of what they hoped would become a massive uprising leading to the restoration of the Soviet Union in all its Stalinist glory, ruled by people who believed that the world was run by biorobots psychotronically controlled via a satellite from Israel. If this prospect doesn't scare you, you must be orbiting the Earth with Laika the Space Dog.
With unexpected energy and competency they worked the telephones, built alliances, organized groups of supporters, and communicated their directives via the National-Bolshevik newspapers. A flood of violent media propaganda swept the streets. The usual mix of class envy and Jew-bashing was now accompanied by open calls for the blood of traitors of the Motherland. All the ingredients of a fascist revolt were in place. Armed with clubs and crowbars, bands of self-styled storm troopers crushed windows, offices, and bones of those who they suspected were rich business people or their agents - especially if they were Jews. Sound familiar? It should.
The plan of attack included the takeover of the national "Jew-infested" Ostankino TV Center. When an armored personnel carrier crashed through the glass lobby of the TV Center, the entire country watched helplessly on their screens, in real time, as hundreds of armed thugs rushed inside and towards the TV cameras, followed by a blank screen and dead silence. A special military unit loyal to Yeltsin beat back the attack, but the screens remained dead for several more hours. 62 people were killed in that attack, including several TV Center journalists and technicians. As journalists they may have believed they'd be immune from violent retribution. They were wrong.
Hundreds of Yeltsin's supporters gathered that night at the City Hall, determined to fight but without a clear understanding who their allies or enemies were. The police chiefs were on the side of the rioters. The military leaders were still unsure who to support. By all indications Russia was slipping into a civil war. Only on the tenth day did the army elites finally make up their minds and back Yeltsin, sending in Special Forces to stop the rioting and weed out the snipers.
They started with the headquarters. When the army surrounded the Parliament and offered to surrender, the response was gunfire from the windows. The shooters inside the "White House" chaotically fired at anything that moved, including the medics who rushed to help the wounded. Eventually the snipers were taken out with tank artillery fire at the windows, after which the building was stormed and cleared of the rebels.
The anti-Yeltsin riots took 187 lives and left 437 wounded. Despite some media reports, none of the "People's Deputies" responsible for the violence were injured. Two of their leaders were charged and imprisoned, but released in less than a year, after Yeltsin's standing had become more secure. Another persistent myth was that Yeltsin fired at defenseless and unarmed elected legislature. But the count of weapons confiscated from the rebels included 1,132 rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, pistols, mines, and explosive devices, as well as 196,000 rounds of ammunition.
"A fascist must always have a swastika
prominently displayed on the sleeve at all times -
otherwise he's just a victim working out grievances."
The Americans with whom I discussed these events were surprised at hearing about the high death toll. They didn't realize it was this bad, nor had they been informed about the anti-Semitic nature of the riots. It seems the media had failed to do its job, which is strange considering that Moscow was swarming with foreign journalists. As far as I can remember, my personal impressions at the time were that in an attempt to stay objective, the Western journalists chose some questionable middle ground - which made their coverage anything but objective.
Some of the Western journalists were even trying to see the events through the eyes of the attacking mob. They did it even after the deadly assault on the TV Center and the killing of its journalists. They continued to do so even after a rebel sniper shot and killed a British cameraman, even when several other Western reporters were wounded, including a New York Times photographer. For some inexplicable reason they refused to see the irrational nature of the extremists they tried to empathize with. All they seemed to be interested in was, feeding on people's grievances.
Apparently, in their minds, a fascist must always have a swastika prominently displayed on the sleeve at all times - otherwise he's just a victim working out grievances. These journalists wouldn't recognize fascism if it smacked them over the head with a hammer and sickle, which is the Soviet version of swastika. They probably wouldn't have believed me if I were to tell them that in the twisted minds of these ultra-nationalist maniacs, all Westerners were under the suspicion of being Zionist running dogs working to enslave and destroy Mother Russia. To appreciate just how crazy they were, consider the fact that one of their worst imaginary Zionist enemies was Bill Clinton.
I can't help but think about this media tendency every time I see a Western journalist trying to explain the mindset of a foreign extremist. Quite predictably they end up with projecting Western biases, including the Bush derangement syndrome.
A memo to Western reporters: the extremists hate you and want to kill you just for that little uncomplicated image of you they keep in their hateful delusional minds - that's why they are extremists, and you have absolutely no control over that. Spare them your personal struggles and complexes. Anything you say will only reinforce their conviction that you are an agent of the international Zionist conspiracy. The more believable your story is, the more cunning and dangerous agent they'll think you are.
Granted, Yeltsin's image in the Western media coverage remained mostly positive. But still, after the attack on the Parliament many expressed concerns about his growing dictatorial tendencies. When Yeltsin banned leftist parties implicated in the recent violence, Western reporters voiced their alarm over his totalitarian ambitions, forgetting to mention the narrowly thwarted threat of a ghastly dictatorship by lunatics, a regime that could send nasty aftershocks throughout the world. When Yeltsin closed down half a dozen National-Bolshevik publications that advocated violence, the media chided him for suppressing freedom of speech.
Under pressure from concerned Western leaders, media, and liberal intellectuals, Yeltsin lifted the ban some weeks later. Whatever the reason for the Western concern was, the criticism was unfair because Yeltsin was known to be tolerant of opposing media opinions and never denied interviews to those journalists who he knew disapproved of his policies, as long as it was a rational and civil discourse.
The attitude of the Western media puzzled me. I could understand their noble, albeit misguided desire to stand on the principles of freedom. I could appreciate the challenge of working in a different culture without knowing the language. But that didn't explain why some of them chose to empathize with the extremists. Only after I moved to the States did the pieces of the puzzle begin to fall into place.
"Whatever the reasons, it has been my personal observation
that American media leans to the left in its reporting
of the news, both foreign and domestic."
No society agrees on everything; every nation has quarrels and dissenters. To put events in perspective, foreign reporters must choose local sources for reliable background information. And more often than not their choices favor leftist causes. Western reporters habitually rely on leftist activists as their sources, as well as subjects for their interviews. One might argue that birds of feather flock together, others will mention "liberal" education and selective employment process, yet someone else will remind us that it has long been a media tradition in the U.S., to lean left and vote Democrat. Whatever the reasons, it has been my personal observation that American media leans to the left in its reporting of the news, both foreign and domestic.
A typical news story about President Bush's foreign trip would describe a heckler in the crowd, an aged hippy grandmother climbing a fence of the Buckingham Palace, or a group of leftist protesters staging a rally, accompanied by a few interviews with the "people" who predictably espouse anti-American sentiments.
Pussy-cat, pussy-cat, where have you been?
"I've been to London to look at the queen."
Pussy-cat, pussy-cat, what did you there?
"I frightened a little mouse under the chair."
Just like this pussy-cat, some reporters fail to notice things above their eye-level, favoring stories about a little mouse under the chair.
The last time Bush went to Argentina we heard many reports about the protest organized by Hugo Chavez, describing what Chavez said and what was written on Maradona's T-shirt. But what was Bush doing in Argentina? The reports either didn't say, or they mentioned some sort of a summit. What did the President of your country say at the summit and what were the implications? Silence. One begins to wonder if those reporters can actually answer such a question or understand the issues involved, unless they are explained to them by a leftist activist.
So when a coup happened in Russia and the reporters struggled to understand what was happening, some of them habitually resorted to the leftist sources - who in this case were allied with the National-Bolsheviks. That was why Yeltsin became a "tyrant," the rebels became "unarmed victims," and blood-thirsty anti-Semitic rags became "free press." That was why not a word was said about the rebels' anti-Semitism and paranoid political philosophy. All that was said about their nature was that they cared about the Russian people. Apparently Hitler also cared about the German people; we all know how that ended.
"A reporter who "wants to change the world" is guided
not by reason but by feel-good 'progressive' morality."
When a reporter says that he "wants to change the world" he admits that he doesn't trust his readers' ability to form an opinion based on objective reality. Instead, we are being fed one-sided information leading us to a predetermined opinion without thinking. Someone we don't even know, who may as well be incapable of seeing things above his eye-level, becomes the ultimate arbiter of what and how we must think. But thinking is hardly ever a goal here. A reporter who "wants to change the world" is guided, not by reason but by feel-good "progressive" morality.
One might say "progressive" morality is based on rooting for the underdog. But leftists aren't always the underdogs; they clearly are overlords in Cuba, Venezuela, and other "people's" dictatorships - who's rooting for their underdogs? The clear underdog of Stalin's industrialization was Ukraine with six million starved peasants - but no one rooted for them in the glowing Pulitzer-winning reporting by the New York Times' Walter Duranty. Was it Duranty's "progressive" morality that prompted him to deceive a generation of Americans about the true nature of Soviet socialism?
Skewed reporting results in wrong opinions and bad decisions. That alone can "change the world," as proven by Walter Cronkite's calling a victorious Tet Offensive a "defeat." He was granted his wish - paid for by the five million people slaughtered in Vietnam and Cambodia after the American withdrawal. Perhaps Cronkite often got that ticklish feeling of moral satisfaction for supporting the underdog. That ticklish feeling is an addiction. There's no shortage of journalists who "want to change the world" in Iraq, by selective reporting and empathizing with extremists. You get the picture.
"Do you ever get the feeling that you don't know
whether to laugh or find a New York Times editor
and slap him silly?"
About three years later, when I already lived in the States, I came across an open letter to Boris Yeltsin, written and signed by the New York Times editors and other leading liberal intellectuals. Printed in large letters across an entire page in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. The letter derided Yeltsin for allowing rabid anti-Semitic publications to exist in Russia and to spread their paranoid conspiracy theories that cultivated ethnic hatred.
Do you ever get the feeling that you don't know whether you should laugh or find a New York Times editor and slap him silly? The letter named names, giving a list of National-Bolshevik magazines and newspapers - the same ones Yeltsin had banned after the fascist riots but was then forced to lift the ban under pressure from probably the same group of New York Times editors and leading liberal intellectuals who at the time were concerned with the rights of leftist organizations in Russia having no freedom of speech.
The irony surely went over the heads of the liberal intellectuals and New York Times fooled by their own school of skewed journalism that favors leftist causes. But there's little doubt that every time they put pressure on Boris Yeltsin they reveled in the importance of their highly moral mission to "change the world." If you ever wondered about the absurd picture some foreigners have of this country, guess which major American newspaper foreign journalists read and take their cues from.
"Today's media scribes follow Cronkite's steps
in large unquestioning herds,
eager to 'change the world' through activist reporting."
If Walter Cronkite is still praised as a model for the future generations of journalists, what else could you expect? Today's media scribes follow Cronkite's steps in large unquestioning herds, eager to "change the world" through activist reporting, blinding everybody including themselves in the process.
Latest example. The skewed, selective reports from Iraq paint a general picture in which a relatively small group of murderous foreign extremists speak for the entire nation of Iraq, while the majority of native Iraqis who want peace, freedom, and prosperity are snubbed and ignored as if they don't exist. The bloody destructive "progress" of the terrorists is trumpeted on the front pages, while the real progress in reconstruction and democratization hardly gets any notice. Considering the moral encouragement such reporting gives to the terrorists, and the discouragement it brings to the rest of us, one begins to wonder whose side these scribes are really on.
Of course, they'll tell you they're not taking sides at all - they're trying to stay in the middle in order to be "objective." But is there an objective definition of a "middle" in this conflict? One side is rooting for a prosperous modern democracy in which everybody will be treated as a human being and have a chance to succeed in life. The other side's goal is an oppressive archaic theocracy plagued by degrading poverty and brutality, where everyone lives as a slave at the mercy of a despot.
"A compromise between good and evil
is always a victory for evil."
Any objective onlooker will see this as a fight between good and evil. What's the middle ground here? It can only exist as a vague subjective notion inside an individual reporter's head. Trying to be objective by being subjective is patently absurd, yet this is what happens when reason is replaced by feel-good "progressive" morality. The result is an abandonment of any objective criteria and moral standards. A compromise between good and evil is always a victory for evil.
Objectivity can't be relative; neither can be morality. Thinking otherwise results in the sorry state the Western media is today.
In the fantasy world created by activist reporters indiscriminate murderers who want to terrorize the Iraqis into submission by blowing up markets become idealistic freedom fighters. The American troops protecting the Iraqis and their freedoms from terrorists become immoral and murderous occupiers. How hard is it really to discern the objective criteria in this picture? All one has to do is to look at the ultimate goals of the both parties and the means used to achieve them. Yet many people find this rather easy task of observation almost impossible.
The distortions of reality in media reports from Russia, Iraq, Israel, Africa, America, and other hot and not-so-hot spots, are not the result of some malicious conspiracy. They are rather a symptom of a disorder that plagues large segments of Western societies. This is a disorder where otherwise healthy people lose the ability to see where they are going and why. They no longer understand the true meaning of progress; they have blindly replaced it with an opposite notion that is more convenient because going downhill is easier. They insist on calling themselves "progressives" even though their easy feel-good morality is guiding them in reverse direction. A more common name for this symptom is moral blindness.
Anyone who had lived through the attempt by Soviet hardliners to take back the power and restore a Stalinist dictatorship would be astounded, just as I am, with allegations by today's American "progressives" that George W. Bush is a dictator whose "junta" has usurped our freedoms and reversed decades of progress, turning America into a "fascistic autocracy." Such people don't even begin to know what "junta" really means nor what it feels like to live in a dictatorship. These pundits may think of themselves as enlightened "defenders of freedom," but in reality they only expose their own moral blindness. By shooting in the wrong direction they are hurting the very cause they claim they fight for. Freedom cannot be attained by erasing the objective criteria of liberty and democracy. Dictatorship cannot be fought by misleading the nation about the true nature of tyranny and oppression.
SocialistParty.org.ukThe clique around Yeltsin, once they had adopted the policy of full-scale, fast-track privatisation, fought ruthlessly against any challenge to their control over the spoils either from rival gangs of thieves or from the working class, trying to fight back against the onslaught on their living standards. This is why Yeltsin has got the fullest praise from western capitalist leaders and billionaire oligarchs alike, who turn a blind eye to his brutal methods.
SocialistParty.org.ukIt is ninety years since the heroic battles of the workers and poor peasants in Russia which overthrew the tyranny of tsars and then of capitalism itself. But Boris Yeltsin did not succeed in burying the genuine ideas of socialism and communism. On the contrary, the bitter experience of the mass of the population under his rule, and of the 'wild (cruel and chaotic) capitalism' that has continued in the ensuing years, brings home to more and more people in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere the urgent need to revive those ideas and implement them fully!
As can be seen from these quotes, capitalism is nothing but a lawless state of wild jungle anarchy where the most ruthless predators grab the spoils. If not for Marxist-Leninism, civilization itself would crumble.
The Socialst Party UK youth organization ISR sends this message:
Down with 'wild' capitalism!
And, as capitalism isn't an economic system as such, but is simply the outcome of what happens when free people enjoy liberty and can do what they wish with their lives and money, what that sign actually means is:
FREEDOM = POVERTY!
I think that's what the Party should have printed on signs for future spontaneous protests.
Red SquareThis won’t be so shocking if you consider that Marxism is also, in essence, a vast conspiracy theory explaining how capitalist oppressors have conquered the world and are now controlling the people’s minds through cultural hegemony.
That is a fantastic statement.
I hereby propose the Constitution be changed to allow Comrade Red Square to run for President. Or after the revolution against the Zionist, we'll just place him there.
Seriously though, I have often wondered why we here at The People's Cube don't get the kind of trawlers you find in other conservative blog sites. I remember seeing a couple on Communists for Kerry. I hadn't been there since The People's Cube was founded. I just checked in, and it seems the last entry was from around the time Senator Non-person was purged, but I digress. We don't have a lot of detractors, other than Cafe Press. It isn't as though Comrade Red Square actively purges dissenters, not at least until we have had time to play with them. I think it comes down to fear. It is easy to trawl the run-of-the-mill Conservative thought zones, where dissident lefties will drop their over-used tropes of ignorance and then cry wolf when they're roundly criticized. My favorite liberal debating tactic is to watch them feign indifference when they have clearly attempted to incite an emotional retort. It used to make me want to go all Khrushchev on their forehead, but I've learned to counter it.
I think, however, the reason we don't have trawlers, save our obscurity (And attempts by Google to render us a non-entity), is that many would-be attackers don't understand the site, and after a couple of paragraphs of reading they are left dumbfounded as to what they have seen. I mean they see all the same imagery they see on their flavor of the month Bush bashing cyber stop, but the words are arranged differently. No, no, the real reason people don't attempt to engage us is, based on the brilliant piece I just read above, they would find themselves so deluged with logic and creative denunciation that they would be unable to swallow it, let alone process it and choke out a semi-cohesive rebuttal. It would be like standing under a breaking damn.
Comrade Red Square, please, find us a detractor that we might feed on his (or her) soul. Do you think Grandma Pelosi would debate us? Maybe we can celebrate our own May Day, where we pick some liberal site and commence with some good'ol fashioned revolutionary rabble rousing.
Anyway, enough incoherent rambling from me. I humbly offer my meager skills to the betterment of the cube. I'm so glad I found this place. That was a fantastic article and I'll be linking around to friends.
The Cult of Personality is one thing that has been missing in our otherwise fine collective. Let's not forget, comrades, that every single socialist revolution was followed by a Cult of Personality. It helped to cement the Party ranks, enabling the Beloved Leader to direct the masses towards the glorious future of building an equitable communist society. When in doubt always think about Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Ho Che Ming (is it PC to mention comrade Ho these days?), Castro - and a host of other minor personality cults in the subservient satellite states of Eastern Europe and Mongolia.
So yes - by all means! The stronger the Personality Cult the stronger the equality! And because you have pioneered it here, comrade Rikalonius, the looming cornucopia of special privileges for the more equal comrades shall await you once the government distribution system is introduced.
As for the Communists for Kerry debates, I - that is we - yes, we made a collective decision, shortly after the failed revolution, to disable posting due to the swelling numbers of disaffected weak liberals seeking to be cured by strong communism. When we realized that Karl Marx Treatment Center was unable to process all the requests, we simply locked the doors and sent all the applicants to the gulag. This was trumpeted at the time as a glorious victory for the socialized mental healthcare.
I hereby propose the Constitution be changed to allow Comrade Red Square to run for President. Or after the revolution against the Zionist, we'll just place him there.
I agree that Comrade Red Square should be allowed to run for president. However, as the People's Congress has already brilliantly demonstrated, it is easy to change the Constitution, as long as the Party runs the show. Forget about amendments. Why, not too long ago Great Leader Pelosi made herself Secretary of State and Commander in Chief. Why? Because of the all important MANDATE! Want to abolish freedom of speech by those you disagree with? The "Fairness" Doctrine works, purging talk radio and charging your ideological opponents as "threats to national security." We have a MANDATE to charge these capitalists with thought crimes! Want to make those fifty stars on the flag red stars? Go ahead, because using the "mandate" excuse allows the Party to do anything! Changing the Constitution only requires the Party leadership to claim anything they do as a "mandate" of the November 7 revolution.
Off the subject, I am inspired by all those pictures of open minded liberals. They are so open minded they don't need to bother to expose themselves to different opinions. They are steadfast in their support of the freedom fighters in the Global War on America.
Quote:They are so open minded they don't need to bother to expose themselves to different opinions.
They are so open minded that their minds have left their bodies and are currently sipping expensive French whine and talking about how everything would be better if they were in control.
Quote:Want to abolish freedom of speech by those you disagree with? The "Fairness" Doctrine works, purging talk radio and charging your ideological opponents as "threats to national security."
How about this one for the People's Dry Goods store: SHUT UP! YOU'RE BEING INTOLERANT!
It's a reminder to ourselves and our struggling comrades that together we can stamp out intolerance.
Comrade BlogunovHow about this one for the People's Dry Goods store: SHUT UP! YOU'RE BEING INTOLERANT!
It's a reminder to ourselves and our struggling comrades that together we can stamp out intolerance.
A good one. I'll try to think of something once I find time...
The leaves us to deal with the "morally inferior". Yes, the RepubliKKKans (and those like them) and their dangerous agenda to transform the proletariat and the non-working peoples of the world into self-sufficient, intelligent, human beings capable of caring for themselves. This MUST BE stopped. By forcing the intellectually inferior proletariat to work and be self sustaining they slowly begin to "wean" the intellectually inferior from the narcotic nanny state the we worked so hard to build. They turn the proletariat into the working slave class of the bourgeoisies. They do not care!!! We care! By the shear fact that we are Socialists, we care. Because that is what Socialism is, caring and compassion for those more stupid than we are. Too stupid to be trusted to care for themselves.
Before Comrade Red Square is appointed President of the United Socialist States of Amerika, we must get her Excellency, HRC, elected President first. The reason is that in order for Comrade Red Square and The Party(tm) take over and bring death to liberty, her Excellency must be to the one that begins the process of confiscating all of the firearms that are in the hands of the proletariat. Remember the proletariat is intellectually inferior to The Party(tm) and cannot be trusted with firearm. Besides, we do not want the proletariat to turn on us and start shooting at us!
Before any of our plans can be executed, we have a problem. Clouds are brewing on the horizon!!! A counter-revolutionary by the name of Eric Alan Beltt, has "outted" us and our "superiority complex".
Based on research that I have done on Google, this message is spreading. As you know, such things can blowup from a small political commentary into a full-scale revolt against the party.
Zampolit B. S. Blokayev
Zampolit BlokhayevBefore any of our plans can be executed, we have a problem. Clouds are brewing on the horizon!!! A counter-revolutionary by the name of Eric Alan Beltt, has "outted" us and our "superiority complex".
Comrade, DO NOT GIVE UP!!! Do not be discouraged by one running dog fascist! Did Lenin give up when Czar Nicholas II was overthrown and replaced by that capitalist pig Kerensky and his provisional government? NO! Lenin didn't give up, and led the overthrow of Kerensky! Did Comrade Stalin give up when Trotsky fled to Mexico? NO! His loyal agent silenced his unapproved messages. Nothing's over until the Party decides it is!
A bigger threat, however, is the proletariats themselves. We all relish all these polls on King George IV's approval ratings. Although we know the polls are rigged to our favor, the simple minded masses don't know it. However, these polls show that our vanguard organization, the Congress, has approval ratings of 29%. Of course our Propaganda Ministries in the MSM will keep it hidden, this may get out. I think we need to not only teach the toiling masses they are too stupid to take care of themselves, but that they are also too stupid to form their own opinions.
BranishComrade, DO NOT GIVE UP!!!
Comrade Branish, thank you for those inspiring words! Esp. the words about his quasi deity-ness, Lenin! Who is always inspirational.
Rest assured, Comrade Branish! GIVE UP is not in my vocabulary. Even now, I formulating a plan to politically neutralize this enemy of The People(tm) and The Party(tm)! Comrade Theocritus would be of invaluable assistance in this regard, but his schedule is tight (amongst other things). Also, Comrade Smersh will be consulted and the proposal along with the 573 pages of official forms will be sent to the Politburo for approval prior to carrying out a plan against this "running dog fascist"! After all, we are NOT RepubliKKKans!
Make no mistake, this Eric Alan Belt is big trouble and should be taken seriously by The Party(tm). Also a close eye must be kept on this Pendavi guy on Livejournal (http://pendavi.livejournal.com). A review of the things he has been posting there indicates he too is a class enemy. He even proudly admits to being an Anti-Socialist and a Counter-Revolutionary!!! The audacity of that man!!! I strongly recommend that KGB Section 9 put close surveillance on this running dog imperialist.
Zampolit B. S. Blokhayev
Earlier in this thread, Comrade Rikalonius suggested to Comrade Red Square that we have our own May Day and have fun with such groups. I second the motion. Why don't we all visit moveon.org or democraticunderground.org or whatever progressive site and post, making sure they are truly free from thoughtcrimes? If these are the people the Party takes its marching orders from (and not US?!), we must ensure they understand socialist theory.
BranishWhy don't we all visit moveon.org or democraticunderground.org or whatever progressive site and post, making sure they are truly free from thoughtcrimes? If these are the people the Party takes its marching orders from (and not US?!), we must ensure they understand socialist theory.
Thanks for the idea, comrade Branish. We may indeed try such an intervention in the near future. In the meantime, you and Zampolit B. S. Blokhayev are expected at the Party Bunker. Don't delay!
Papa?!? PAPA!?! <GASP!> It is him! My goodness, he has changed so much since the last time I saw him (which was when the NKVD was loading him into a box car). Mama will be very displeased to see he is still alive... I better give her a call and tell her to change the locks on the Dacha.
My brother, though is an unrepentant KKKonservative, and he was dissatisfied with the defeat of Mikael Dukaka: he wanted to see Kitty weaving on the stage, Dukaka throw the car keys to Teddy Kennedy and say, "Here. You drive the drunk bitch home." He also wanted to see Dukaka's children cry. He's also 6' 4" and built big enough for a pro linebacker. Which makes his purge difficult. But since I know know his bank account number and this is a small town and since I do have his power of attorney, things might be done. He doesn't know that I've canceled my P/A to him. Let us never forget that compassion starts at home.
The contractor, Alex, came to estimate the work on my new house, Vita Nova, today, and I am satisfied that the Lucullan delights that I require can be had. But the only problem is that the high water table in West Texas makes my dungeon difficult. Does the Party know of a good maker of sump pumps that I can nationalize?
I am honored to be in confidential correspondence with Our Many Titted Empress HRC on the furnishings of the dungeon, and the power company is running three-phase for the activation of the Hildo Hydra 7.1. And I've commandeered the runways of the WWII fighter base here and resurfaced them for the Gulfstreams of Laurie David, David Geffen--he has his own Hildo attachment--and I have also taken a controlling interest in Sikorsky for helicopters to ferry people to Vita Nova.
DuPont has developed a new irridescent red paint, and Benneton has designed a hammer and sickle with a je ne sais quoi; that certain post-modern look that I like.
What a fool Francis Fukuyama is.
Commissar TheocritusBut the only problem is that the high water table in West Texas makes my dungeon difficult. Does the Party know of a good maker of sump pumps that I can nationalize?
If you are unable to find a suitablt sump pump, may I recommend turning it into a Chinese Water Torture chamber? Surely we could get some folks from Taiwan to come over and be our test subjects for it.
Zampolit B. S. Blokhayev