Republicans have no Clue what Socialism and Communism means

Here's the edumacated left teaching the dumbed down right how to stay stupid. For some reason, nobody in America is supposed to know anything about "the composite system" yet. Is it really possible Democrats STILL have no clue what communitarianism means? Well, it sure is convienent that the "feebleminded right" keeps using terms the Democrats can understand.

Republicans have no Clue what Socialism and Communism means
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Republicans-have-no-Clue-w-by-Steven-Leser-090308-590.html
by Steven Leser, Oped News

"The latest lexical victims are "Socialism" and "Communism". The Republican and Conservative right in America now liberally apply these words to anyone who is center and center left, including all Democrats and President Barack Obama. You can see/hear this happen with regularity on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and on the website Free Republic www.freerepublic.com . In fact, the owner of Free Republic recently issued a missive warning the site's members to stop writing posts threatening President Obama and said missive was laced with proclamations that Obama is a Communist or Communist sympathizer. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2200093/posts ."

{Here he quotes from the freerepublic forum, Niki}

Here is a generous hint to my feebleminded right wing friends. It is impossible to be a Socialist or a Communist if one is not calling for the nationalization of entire industries. Now, I used a lot of big words there that right wingers reading this may not understand, so I will make my hint even easier to comprehend (note: comprehend means "understand"). If a government or a leader of a government is not taking over complete ownership and control of every business that has a certain function (i.e. does similar things), then you do not have a government or government leader that is Socialist or Communist. There is a similar relationship with property rights. If a government or leader is not advocating or actively taking private property rights away from people, you don’t have a Socialist or Communist government or leader.

The closest we are coming to doing anything remotely like this right now is with banking. There are people out there who are advocating temporary Nationalization of the banking industry, including some Republicans. Obama is an opponent of this idea. (Note to right wingers, "opponent" means, he doesn't like the idea of doing this).

In fact, no Democrats are Socialists or Communists (at least none that understand what it means to be a Democrat). If any of us were, we would leave the Democratic Party and join one of the many Socialist or Communist parties that exist in the US. The fact that we are Democrats means that we believe in Capitalism albeit with appropriate oversight and rules.

An amusing discussion of this entire topic, "Who you calling Socialist" was penned by Harold Meyerson who is a self-proclaimed Socialist http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303207.html the entire article is a masterpiece, but I particularly like:

Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn't that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.

------------------------------
For more distinctions between what a Democrat like Obama is and a Socialist or Communist, I offer the writings of one of my fellow members of OpEdNews, Richard Mynick. His last article can be seen here http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__080128_capitalism_as_the_en.htm . Richard is an avowed Socialist. The difference between what Richard advocates and what a Democrat advocates is stark.

I realize that most of this is going to be ignored by many of those at whom this is directed, but they should consider this. The irony of what the conservative right is doing with regard to terms like appeasement and Socialism and Communism is that they are using the words so often and so inappropriately that they are going to take any kind of stigma away from them. Obama is probably going to improve relations with Russia, China and Iran. People are probably going to like the effects of this. If Right wingers call this "appeasement" then calling anything in the future "appeasement" is going to stop having a negative connotation. Similarly, if Obama's economic policies work, and I think they are, if they are termed "Socialism" or "Communism" then the next time people call someone's policies Socialism or Communism, it wont cause such a stir. THAT could be extremely destructive if it turns out that someone is really appeasing another country or taking us down the road to collectivism.

Moreover, if Republicans ever again hope to become more than a marginalized and regional party, using this kind of rhetoric is exactly the opposite way to do it. Anyone who has had any college level political science class knows well the real definition of these terms and is going to be turned off by people misusing them so badly.

Here is one more freebee to JimRob and the other folk at Free Republic who entertain me so. After eight years of trying to tell me and every other Democrat that any attitude other than getting 100% behind the US President, no matter who he may be, means you are a traitor, your frenzied antipathy toward Obama makes you all seem like the most ridiculous of hypocrites on the American political scene. You might want to think about that some.

An OEN Editor, Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations. Steven Leser (more...)

Maybe the superior writers at Oped News don't read everything posted at their site, but if they did they might see the flaws in their position. Etzioni's co founder of socioeconomics explains:

Gorbachev on the worldwide economic meltdown:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Gorbachev-and-the-Buddha--by-Grant-Lawrence-090307-23.html

Gorbachev seemed to view the global meltdown as partly the result of years of Western hubris and excess. "The American media trumpeted ... about the victory in the Cold War, that socialism is down. This disease of extreme self-confidence led to it -- the [belief] that things would always go on this way. ... I think that now everyone is learning a hard lesson. ... It is necessary to overcome these mistakes of super-consumerism, of super-profits." The answer? A composite system that incorporates "the past experience of all that the capitalist system brings, like competitiveness, and what socialism gives -- especially a social safety net."

And I know Etzioni began promoting himself as a "guru" in the 90s. but I never knew Gorbachev thinks like the Buddha. That Gorbachev quote above comes from an article called "Gorbachev and the Buddha--A Middle Way for Humanity" by Grant Lawrence! (Thanks Pete!)

Joe McCarthy, Communism and Fellow Travelers

I watched the movie, Good night and Good Luck, and noticed it when Ed Murrow said McCarthy accused people of being either communists or "fellow travelers." I'd never heard this used in reference to McCarthy, but when I went to look it up I found it was used by McCarthy. Isn't fellow traveler also the "secret" codeword for Freemasons?

An article by Ronald Radash tempers the fact that "McCarthy did identify some Communists who escaped the net" with the fact that he also began investigating some others who were not. This reminds me of one of the responses to Alan Stang's article on MLK Day, where one crticic asserted that MLK's plagiarizing (1/3 to 1/2 of) his doctoral thesis is no big deal in light of all the "good work" he did. Who were the Communists who escaped? Where did they escape to? What did they do after that? Is there a list of these people? I bet there is.

From George Mason University's History News Network:

Ronald Radosh: Is the new biography of Joe McCarthy trustworthy?
Source: National Review Online (12-17-07)
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/46544.html

"While McCarthy did identify some Communists who managed to escape the net, he also began to investigate and pillory many who were in no way connected with the Soviets as agents, spies, or couriers. He often failed to distinguish between actual Communists, fellow-travelers, and anti-Communist liberals and social-democrats. It was enough for him to know that they were critical of his methods and tactics: That made them as good as Communists. Many of these people were indeed Communists, fellow-travelers, or dupes. But they were not engaged in any activity except that of public pronouncements that could be accepted or rejected on their merits. Nothing in the area of their work made them a security risk."

I'm tending toward the belief (because we can never really know who any of these players were.. can we?) that McCarthy was just a little too perfect for the dialectic. Look at the necessary role he fulfilled; he took the spotlight off other extremely credible Congressional investigations and became the perfect target for the opposition. After the Senate censured him the communist agents had ZERO official opposition. Look at what happened after that to anyone who suggested investigations of communist subversives. And when I first recognized the communist language used by city planning officials in Seattle, Democrat Nancy Rising warned me I needed to stop sounding so much like McCarthy.

Throughout my entire lifetime, calling someone (in the USA) a communist was returned with an accusation of "red baiting" or worse. So what happened to the OTHER accusation McCarthy made. What exactly did he mean by "either a communist or a fellow traveler?" Doesn't the either/or question imply they're two different things?

Here's a few places using the term "fellow traveler":

This first one is an amazing letter directed at Communism and Freemasonry:

An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 12. Comrades and Fellow-Travellers
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-12.htm

Ron Paul War Room
http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=3435

9th MasonicDistrict of Ohio Forums-Fellow Travelers:
http://9thdistrict.ohiofreemason.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=3

The Masonic Traveler blog:
http://masonictraveler.blogspot.com/2006/04/marketing-freemasonry.html

The Masonic Traveler has an article on Oprah's endorsement of The Secret:
http://masonictraveler.blogspot.com/2007/02/oprah-and-secret-of-secret.html

I've spent my whole life hearing about the poor innocents who were wrongly investigated by McCarthy, but I never heard of the Reese Committee until I started doing ACL research. I just went to find Iserbyt's links to the Reese transcripts and guess what????? Her book is now downloadable for FREE online! http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

Here's Charlotte's site with a wealth of references from the 20s, 30s and 40s (when communism was still a topic considered politically correct and appropriate for national discussions):
http://www.americandeception.com/

What an interesting day this is becoming. I just got an email about a bill introduced in 1992 in the U.S. Congress regarding adopting Agenda 21 goals in the U.S. I couldn't find the right link so I did a search for it. Nothing came back for Agenda 21, but this one came in as closely related:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.873:


109th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. RES. 873

Recognizing the continued importance of the transatlantic partnership between the United States and the European Union by expressing support for the success of the forthcoming US-EU Summit in Vienna, Austria, on June 21, 2006.

H. RES. 873 tells a LOT about how closely we're tied to to E.U. Let us not forget the E.U. was established under the Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) reaffirms the importance of the transatlantic relationship between the United States and the European Union;

(2) recognizes that both the United States and Europe face multiple and common challenges at home and abroad and to deal effectively with many of these challenges the United States and the European Union must continue to adapt the transatlantic partnership which has served both so well;

(3) acknowledges that the relationship between the United States and the European Union should continue to be strengthened through regular and intensive consultations;

(4) expresses its support for the success of the forthcoming US-EU Summit on June 21, 2006, in Vienna, Austria, and encourages agreements on issues such as the continued support for global freedom, democracy, and human rights, a successful conclusion of the World Trade Organization Doha Development Agenda, and a workable transatlantic energy security strategy; and

(5) joins with the European Parliament in agreeing to continue to strengthen the transatlantic partnership by enhancing the dialogue and collaboration between the United States Congress and the European Parliament through the framework of the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue and other legislative exchanges.

Anyone who doesn't believe there's an integration into an emerging global parliament should go here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/tld/default_en.htm

"The economic relationship between the European Union and the United States is perhaps the most defining feature of the global economy. The integration is broader and deeper than between any two other political regions in the world. The EU and US account for 35 percent of global merchandise trade, 45% of world trade in services and produce 57% of world GDP. The partnership is also the single most important driver of global economic growth, trade, and prosperity. And bilateral economic ties are increasing every year."

Does it matter to Americans that the E.U. economy is governed by communitarians? Weren't the two "competing" theories called capitalism and communism? Is communitariansm the blend?

Okay she emailed me the correct link. This was PASSED by the House:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.CON.RES.353:

102d CONGRESS 2d Session

H. CON. RES. 353

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level United Nations Sustainable Development Commission.

HCON 353 EH

102d CONGRESS 2d Session

H. CON. RES. 353

---

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (hereinafter in this preamble referred to as `UNCED'), known as the Earth Summit, assembled in June of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the largest summit of heads of state in history and outlined a comprehensive action plan for environmentally sustainable development, known as Agenda 21;

Whereas the United States has a strong national interest in the environmental sustainability of global economic development, and many pressing environmental and economic problems are inherently transboundary and not susceptible to resolution by the actions of any single nation acting alone;

Whereas Agenda 21, a plan of national and international actions to integrate environment and development, negotiated and adopted by the United States and 177 other countries, offers a significant starting point for continuing progress in avoiding environmental degradation and social and economic disintegration in the 21st century;

Whereas the role of the United States, as a major economic force and a country that has long been in the forefront of environmental protection activities nationally and internationally, should be one of leadership and positive action in the implementation process of Agenda 21 and all decisions of UNCED;

Whereas Agenda 21 urges all governments to adopt national strategies for sustainable development;

Whereas Agenda 21 urges all countries to `make significant progress' in incorporating environmental costs into economic decisions, to undertake research or sustainable production methods and consumption patterns, and to undertake other actions to make their economies more environmentally sustainable;

Whereas Agenda 21 calls for a `supportive international climate for achieving environment and development goals,' by `providing adequate financial resources to developing countries and dealing with international debt,' and calls for `the reallocation of resources presently committed to military purposes' to support United States policies and the efforts of developing countries to implement Agenda 21;

Whereas UNCED recommended that a high-level United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (hereinafter in this preamble referred to as the `Commission') be established by the 47th United Nations General Assembly to provide a vital forum in which the member states of the United Nations may review progress made by considering reports from national governments, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations;

Whereas the United States was an active and positive participant in UNCED negotiations regarding the Commission, and will play a major role in the decisions of the 47th United Nations General Assembly regarding the specific modalities and effectiveness of the Commission;

Whereas the agreements adopted at UNCED are milestones toward the achievement of environmentally sustainable economic development and for holding governments accountable for progress toward integrating environment and development;

Whereas many opportunities for agreements concerning more extensive actions on critical issues remained unresolved at UNCED and will require further attention by the nations of the world; and

Whereas the ultimate success of achieving sustainable development and a healthy environment at the national and international levels depends upon actions taken at the State and local community levels, and on actions by schools, public offices, businesses, and citizens: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--

(1) effective follow-up to achieve the many goals of the agreements reached at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as `UNCED') will depend on the following actions by the President and the United States Government:

(A) The United States should adopt a national strategy for environmentally sustainable development, based on an extensive process of nationwide consultations with all interested organizations and individuals, including State and local governments, nongovernmental organization, businesses, and labor groups.

(B) The United States Government should encourage and facilitate, at all levels of community and sectors of society, appropriate means for adopting individual Agenda 21 plans of action, including the establishment of local, county, State, business, and other boards and commissions for achieving sustainable development. Each member of the Congress should help initiate this process within their States or districts.

(C) The President should establish an effective mechanism to plan, initiate, and coordinate United States policy for implementing Agenda 21. Responsibility should be vested in a duly constituted office, headed by an appropriate high level official, and the necessary staff support structure should be provided.

(D) Policies should be formulated for foreign policy and foreign assistance in order to help developing countries, and for domestic actions in order to assure appropriate action by the United States to implement Agenda 21;

(2) in order to contribute to a transition to a sustainable United States economy, the research and policy initiatives urged in Agenda 21 should be pursued, including research on sustainable consumption and production patterns, creation of a policy framework for sustainable consumption patterns, identification of a strategy to eliminate or reduce subsidies for unsustainable natural resource exploitation, and to improve pricing policies;

(3) the Congress should adopt a plan to reallocate an appropriate amount of savings from reduced defense spending in order to achieve its goals of global environmental protection and sustainable development over the next decade;

(4) the President should urge and actively participate in new and existing multilateral efforts aimed at creating a more favorable international economic climate for developing countries to practice sustainable development, and such efforts should include international consultations regarding reduction in developing country debt linked with environmental policy reforms, and increased loans and concessional assistance upon development and implementation of national sustainable development strategies in developing countries;

(5) the United States should actively support, at the 47th United Nations General Assembly, the effective establishment of a high-level United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the `Commission'), including the establishment of provisions for meaningful participation by organizations of the United Nations system, international financial institutions, and other relevant intergovernmental organizations and nongovernmental organizations recommended by UNCED;

(6) the President should affirm strong United States commitment to the Commission by appointing a high-level representative from the United States to the Commission, and by encouraging the United Nations Secretary General to appoint an Under Secretary General for Sustainable Development to coordinate the implementation of Agenda 21 in the United Nations system and to head the secretariat support structure for the Commission;

(7) the President should submit a national report to the Commission on activities the United States has undertaken to implement Agenda 21, both domestically and internationally, on progress made toward fulfilling other commitments undertaken at UNCED, and on other environmental and developmental issues that the United States finds relevant, and should strongly encourage all United Nations members to submit national reports;

(8) the United States should encourage the Commission to call for periodic international meetings to continue the process toward developing and advancing international agreement to facilitate sustainable economic development for the protection of the global environment and the promotion of human dignity of current and future generations; and

(9) the President should submit an annual report to the Congress on the steps taken by the United States to implement Agenda 21 and the recommendations made by this resolution, and should make information regarding such steps available to members of the Congress upon their request.

Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 1992.

Attest:

Clerk.

So. now, who voted yes to pass this in 1992? Here's the 62 co-sponsors:

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-7] - 8/11/1992
Rep Andrews, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 8/12/1992
Rep Atkins, Chester G. [MA-5] - 8/12/1992
Rep Bacchus, Jim [FL-11] - 8/11/1992
Rep Beilenson, Anthony C. [CA-23] - 8/5/1992
Rep Blackwell, Lucien E. [PA-2] - 8/11/1992
Rep Blaz, Ben G. [GU] - 8/5/1992
Rep Collins, Cardiss [IL-7] - 8/5/1992
Rep Cox, John W., Jr. [IL-16] - 8/11/1992
Rep Dellums, Ronald V. [CA-8] - 8/11/1992
Rep Dymally, Mervyn M. [CA-31] - 9/21/1992
Rep Edwards, Don [CA-10] - 9/9/1992
Rep Evans, Lane [IL-17] - 8/11/1992
Rep Fascell, Dante B. [FL-19] - 8/5/1992
Rep Feighan, Edward F. [OH-19] - 8/5/1992
Rep Flake, Floyd H. [NY-6] - 9/9/1992
Rep Foglietta, Thomas M. [PA-1] - 9/21/1992
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 8/11/1992
Rep Frost, Martin [TX-24] - 8/12/1992
Rep Gejdenson, Sam [CT-2] - 9/9/1992
Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. [NY-22] - 8/11/1992
Rep Green, S. William [NY-15] - 8/5/1992
Rep Hertel, Dennis M. [MI-14] - 8/5/1992
Rep Hochbrueckner, George J. [NY-1] - 8/11/1992
Rep Horton, Frank J. [NY-29] - 9/9/1992
Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] - 8/11/1992
Rep Jefferson, William J. [LA-2] - 8/11/1992
Rep Johnson, Tim [SD] - 8/11/1992
Rep Jones, Walter B. [NC-1] - 8/5/1992
Rep Kleczka, Gerald D. [WI-4] - 8/11/1992
Rep Klug, Scott L. [WI-2] - 9/21/1992
Rep Kolter, Joseph P. [PA-4] - 8/11/1992
Rep Kostmayer, Peter H. [PA-8] - 9/21/1992
Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-11] - 9/21/1992
Rep Lehman, William [FL-17] - 8/11/1992
Rep Machtley, Ronald K. [RI-1] - 8/11/1992
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 8/11/1992
Rep Mazzoli, Romano L. [KY-3] - 8/11/1992
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 8/11/1992
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 8/5/1992
Rep Miller, John R. [WA-1] - 8/5/1992
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 8/11/1992
Rep Morella, Constance A. [MD-8] - 8/5/1992
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 9/9/1992
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-12] - 9/9/1992
Rep Owens, Wayne [UT-2] - 8/11/1992
Rep Panetta, Leon [CA-16] - 8/12/1992
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 8/11/1992
Rep Pease, Donald J. [OH-13] - 9/9/1992
Rep Porter, John Edward [IL-10] - 8/5/1992
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-16] - 9/9/1992
Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT-98] - 8/11/1992
Rep Scheuer, James H. [NY-8] - 8/5/1992
Rep Schroeder, Patricia [CO-1] - 8/11/1992
Rep Schumer, Charles E. [NY-10] - 8/11/1992
Rep Sikorski, Gerry E. [MN-6] - 8/5/1992
Rep Studds, Gerry E. [MA-10] - 8/5/1992
Rep Swett, Dick [NH-2] - 8/11/1992
Rep Tallon, Robert M. (Robin) [SC-6] - 8/12/1992
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-11] - 8/11/1992
Rep Traxler, Bob [MI-8] - 8/12/1992
Rep Unsoeld, Jolene [WA-3] - 8/5/1992
Rep Wolpe, Howard E. [MI-3] - 8/12/1992

Hmmm. No voting record, it was agreed to under supsension of the rules. WTF does that mean?

Senator Joe McCarthy and the communist threat

Senator Joe McCarthy is so famous for his investigations into the communist criminal conspiracy in the U.S.A. that anyone today who opposes communism is labled a "McCarthyist." It's a NEGATIVE label and it implies that the speaker believes in ghosts and boogiemen.

Yet, recently released Soviet and U.S. government documents alledgedly prove the Senator from Wisconsin was almost 100% right; his list of suspected communist agents inside the U.S. government was not so far fetched after all. But that doesn't mean we'll have another national investigation. Nobody investigates the communitarians... nobody suspects Amitai Etzioni of having ulterior motives. Anyone who's attending their local sustainable development meetings is battling the massive forces gained from the results of the successful global infiltration.

Here's an exchange on the subject between Israel Shamir and Peter Myers:

(1) McCarthy - from Shamir

From: "Israel Shamir" <adam@israelshamir.net> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008
18:11:19 +0200

Peter,

if McCarthy was right, and the US were infiltrated by Commies, why in 1991 the USSR collapsed, not the US? Alas, McCarthy was not right; the article you publish is outright ridiculous: "the disastrous Yalta and Potsdam agreements" were the best the West could get out of victorious
Red Army, while without it, Russians would continue to Greece and Italy and France to help the communist forces. These agreements were disastrous only if one is very keen on more war, but both Russia and England/US were tired of war by 1945. "The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by denying military support" is another nonsense of the deranged author: in 1950, one year later, the US fought Mao's China directly in Korea and was beaten. The people of China supported Mao, and the US feelings about Chiang made no difference.

In your preamble, you speak of millions killed by Mao. Do not forget: all these numbers are invention of their enemy. Nobody could count victims at any time. Mao saved millions, by kicking the western imperialists out of China. This liberal squeak about dead is really not worthy of you: people live and die all the time; what is important - whether the policy in question helps those who are alive to live in dignity. From this point of view, Tiananmen square, 89 was a good and positive thing: as an amputation of a diseased limb for salvation of the rest. And Tiananmen was possible because of the glorious Cultural Revolution - if Russians would have a similar one, the USSR would not collapse. We should not be afraid of arguing about past: this way we define the future.

Shamir
La Havana

(3) McCarthy - reply to Shamir, Peter M., February 2, 2008

Israel,

There is one well-known leftist who has attested the disastrous nature of Mao’s reign: Pierre Ryckmans, alias Simon Leys.

Ryckmans was a Sinologist who datailed Mao’s destruction of China’s heritage. His books shatter all myths about Mao.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Ryckmans

{quote} He taught Chinese literature at the Australian National University, where he supervised the honours thesis of current Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd[1] and later was Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Sydney, from 1987 to 1993. ... {endquote}

Whatever good Mao did was undone by his excesses; they are the reason why China changed course.

McCarthy, like most people on the “Far Right”, had no understanding of the divide between Trotsky and Stalin, and the split of the Communist movement over this. Even the Sino-Soviet split only makes sense in terms of it - Khruschev and a Jewish faction had murdered Stalin: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/death-of-stalin.html, whereas Mao remained a Stalinist.

McCarthy lumped all Communists together. He would have been amazed to learn that one faction of Communists had murdered Stalin. He could not see struggles WITHIN the Communist movement, and thus he misunderstood the historical forces transforming our world.

The Soviet Union fell, in part, because it got carried away by its victory in the Vietnam War. In the mid 1970s it was seen as militarily stronger and more socially cohesive than the US. That’s why China came to feel the USSR a greater threat than its old enemy the US. The Soviets considered “liberating” Western Europe, but moved into Afghanistan instead, falling into Zgigniew Brzezinsky’s trap.

Similarly the US, since its “victory” in the Cold War, also got carried away. Like the USSR it has exhaused its goodwill around the world. Its fall is probably closer than we think.

But the USSR also fell because Gorbachev supported Convergence, between the USSR & the US, to One World, as envisaged by Sakharov: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/convergence.html

Before Sakharov, it had been articulated by David Ben Gurion. And before him, by H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/opensoc.html

Consider especially David Ben Gurion’s prediction in 1962

"The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligensia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnanacy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years." http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/tmf.html

What is the meaning of it? Of course the “planned economy” part of it has not happened - because of the machinations of Thatcherism and the Mont Pelerin Society (by the way, Karl Popper, one of its mentors, was also something of a Convergence advocate).

Bear in mind that Ben Gurion had been an admirer of Lenin.

The meaning of his 1962 prediction is that, therough Stalin, the Soviet Union had deviated from Lenin’s course. That it had to be brought back; and in particular Jewish guidance restored as it was before Stalin.

Equally, the West had to abandon “anti-semitsm”, racism, sexism etc, and become more like the early USSR in that “political correctness” sense.

The One World or None report of 1946 also advocated convergence http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/one-world-or-none.html, in its vision of World Government (a la the Baruch Plan): http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/baruch-plan.html

Jews were prominent in that campaign.

Sakharov advocated Convergence. The following quotes are from his book Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom (Penguin Books, Hartmondsworth, 1976; first published 1968).

Sakharov proclaims himself a Marxist & Leninist, expounds Marxism as a Scientific Principle, equates Stalin to Hitler, and sets out a program of Convergence towards World Government that seems similar to the path Gorbachev later pursued.

Although Sakharov makes no mention of Trotsky, he is clearly a Trotskyist. His talk of "racism", "militarism" and "bureaucracy" is classic Trotskyist jargon.

{p. 21} General statement

THE views of the author were formed in the milieu of the scientific and scientific-technological intelligentsia, which manifests much anxiety over the principles and specific aspects of foreign and domestic policy and over the future of mankind. This anxiety is nourished, in particular, by a realization that the scientific method of directing policy, the economy, arts, education, and military affairs still has not become a reality. {i.e. the Marxist utopia has noit been achieved}

We regard as 'scientific' a method based on deep analysis of facts, theories, and views, presupposing unprejudiced, unfearing open discussion and conclusions. The complexity and diversity of all the phenomena of modern life, the great possibilities and dangers linked with the scientific-technical revolution and with a number of social tendencies demand precisely such an approach, as has been acknowledged in a number of official statements.'

In this essay, advanced for discussion, the author has set himself the goal to present, with the greatest conviction and frankness, two theses that are supported by many people in the world. The theses relate to the destruction threatened by the division of mankind and the need for intellectual freedom.

{p. 23} 'The Division of Mankind Threatens it with Destruction'

{Division into independent countries, i.e. anything short of World
Government}

THE division of mankind threatens it with destruction. Civilization is imperilled by: a universal thermonuclear war, catastrophic hunger for rnost of mankind, stupefaction from the narcotic of 'mass culture', and bureaucratized dogmatism ... Only universal cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral ideals of socialism ...will preserve civilization.

{Unlike those who see Communism as destructive of all the world's Civilizations, Sakharov portrays it as the struggle to save Civilization}

The reader will understand that ideological collaboration cannot apply to those fanatical, sectarian, and extremist ideologies that reject all possibility of rapprochement, discussion, and compromise, for example, the ideologies of Fascist, racist, militaristic, and Maoist demagogy.

{Sakharov castigates Maoism; Trotskyists were divided over it} ...

The second basic thesis is that intellectual freedom is essential to human society - freedom to obtain and distribute information, freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate and freedom from pressure by officialdom and prejudices. ...

{But does Sakharov's freedom extend to those who, like me, show that the Soviet Union was created by Jews? By Jews portraying themselves as the representatives of the working Class? If not, then his Freedom is a sham. Did not Lenin and Trotsky establish the repressive regime & Red Terror? Why has Sakharov nothing ill to say of them?} ...

{On the Vietnam War, Sakharov shows himself a Communist, whereas Solzhenitsyn supported the anti-Communists}

IN Vietnam ... An entire people is being sacrificed to the proclaimed goal of stopping the 'Communist tide '.

{But in the Middle East, Sakharov shows himself a Zionist. The 1967 war is called "the preventive six-day war; the word "preventive" justifiyies Israel's starting that war; the Arabs are called "merciless"}

{p. 35} Thus in 1948, Israel waged a defensive war ... The preventive six-day war in the face of threats of destruction by merciless, numerically vastly superior forces of the Arab coalition could have been justifiable. ...

{Sakharov is a Green, as Gorbachev was to become}

WE live in a swiftly changing world. Industrial and water-engineering projects, cutting of forests, ploughing up of virgin lands, the use of poisonous chemicals - all this is changing the face of the earth, our 'habitat'. ...

Carbon dioxide from the burning of coal is altering the heat-reflecting qualities of the atmosphere. ...

Fascism lasted twelve years in Germany. Stalinism lasted twice as long in the Soviet Union. There are many common features but also certain differences. Stalinism exhibited a much more subtle kind of hypocrisy and demagogy, with reliance not on an openly cannibalistic programme
like Hitler's but on a progressive, scientific, and popular socialist ideology.

{What of Lenin and Stalin? What of their Genocides too?}

This served as a convenient screen for deceiving the working class, for weakening the vigilance of the intellectuals and other rivals in the struggle for power, with the treacherous and sudden use of the machinery of torture, execution, and informants, intimidating and mak-

{p. 47} ing fools of millions of people, the majority of whom were neither cowards nor fools. As a consequence of this 'specific feature' of Stalinism, it was the Soviet people, its most active, talented, and honest representatives, who suffered the most terrible blow.

At least 10 to 15 million people perished in the torture chambers of the N.K.V.D. [secret police] from torture and execution, in camps for exiled kulaks [rich peasants] and so-called semi-kulaks and members of their families and in camps 'without the right of correspondence' (which were in fact the prototypes of the Fascist death camps where, for example, thousands of prisoners were machine-gunned because of 'overcrowding' oras a result of 'special orders').

People perished in the mines of Norilsk and Vorkuta from freezing, starvation, and exhausting labour, at countless construction projects, in timber-cutting, building of canals, or simply during transportation in prison trains, in the overcrowded holds of 'death ships' in the Sea of Okhotsk, and during the resettlement of entire peoples, the Crimean Tatars, the Volga Germans, the Kalmyks, and other Caucasus peoples. Readers of the literary journal Novy Mir recently could read for themselves a description of the 'road of death' between Norilsk and Igarka [in northern Siberia].

Temporary masters were replaced (Yagoda, Molotov, Yezhov, Zhdanov, Malenkov, Beria), but the antipeople's regime of Stalin remained equally cruel and at the same time dogmatically narrow and blind in its cruelty. The killing of military and engineering officials before the war, the blind faith in the 'reasonableness' of the colleague in crime, Hitler, and the other reasons for the national tragedy of 1941 have been well described in the book by Nekrich, in the notes of Maj. Gen.

{p. 48} Grigorenko, and other publications - these are far from the only examples of the combination of crime, narrowmindedness, and short-sightedness.

Stalinist dogmatism and isolation from real life was demonstrated particularly in the countryside, in the policy of unlimited exploitation and the predatory forced deliveries at 'symbolic' prices, in almost serflike enslavement of the peasantry, the depriving of peasants of the most simple means of mechanization, and the appointment of collective-farm chairmen on the basis of their cunning and obsequiousness. The results are evident - a profound and hard-to-correct destruction of the economy and way of life in the countryside, which, by the law of interconnected vessels, damaged industry as well.

The inhuman character of Stalinism was demonstrated by the repressions of prisoners of war who survived Fascist camps and then were thrown into Stalinist camps, the anti-worker 'decrees', the criminal exile of entire peoples condemned to slow death, the unenlightened zoological kind of anti-Semitism that was characteristic of Stalinist bureaucracy and the N.K.V.D. (and Stalin personally), the Ukrainophobia characteristic of Stalin, and the draconian laws for the protection of socialist property (five years' imprisonment for stealing some grain from the fields and so forth) that served mainly as a means of fulfilling the demands of the 'slave market').

A profound analysis of the origin and development of Stalinism is contained in the 1,000-page monograph of R. Medvedev. This was written from a socialist, Marxist point of view {Trotskyist jargon} and is a successful work, but unfortunately it has not yet been published. The present author is not likely to receive such a compliment from ...

{p. 75} A Four-stage Plan for Cooperation

{Sakharov's Plan for World Government; note the similarity to Ben Gurion’s language} ...

In the first stage, a growing ideological struggle in the socialist countries between Stalinist and Maoist forces, on the one hand, and the realistic forces of leftist Leninist Communists {i.e. Trotskyists} (and leftist Westerners), on the other, will lead to a deep ideological split on an international, national, and intraparty scale.

In the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, this process will lead first to a multiparty system (here and there) and to acute ideological struggle and discussions, and then to the ideological victory of the realists, affirming the policy of increasing peaceful coexistence, strengthening democracy, and expanding economic reforms (1960-80). The dates reflect the most optimistic unrolling of events.

The author, incidentally, is not one of those who consider the multiparty system to be an essential stage in the development of the socialist system or, even less, a panacea for all ills. but he assumes that in some cases a

{p. 76} multiparty system may be an inevitable consequence of the course of events when a ruling Communist party refuses for one reason or another to rule by the scientific democratic method required by history.

{I.e. Sakharov advocates multiple parties to bring down Stalinism, but after the Trotskyists gain power they would revert to single-party rule}

In the second stage, persistent demands for social progress and peaceful coexistence in the United States and other capitalist countries, and pressure exerted by the example of the socialist countries and by internal progressive forces (the working class and the intelligentsia) will lead to the victory of the leftist reformist wing of the bourgeoisie, which will begin to implement a programme of rapprochement (convergence) with socialism, i.e., social progress, peaceful coexistence, and collaboration with socialism on a world scale and changes in the structure of ownership. This phase includes an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism (1972-85). (The various stages overlap.)

In the third stage, the Soviet Union and the United States, having overcome their alienation, solve the problem of saving the poorer half of the world. The aforementioned twenty per cent tax on the national income of developed countries is applied. Gigantic fertilizer factories and irrigation systems using atomic power will be built [in the developing countries], the resources of the sea will be used to a vastly greater extent, indigenous personnel will be trained, and industrialization will be carried out. Gigantic factories will produce synthetic

{p. 77} amino acids and synthesize proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. At the same time disarmament will proceed (1972-90).

In the fourth stage, the socialist convergence will reduce differences in social structure, promote intellectual freedom, science, and economic progress and lead to the creation of a world government and the smoothing of national contradictions (1980 2000). During this period decisive progress can be expected in the field of nuclear power, both on the basis of uranium and thorium and, probably, deuterium and lithium. ... {end of Sakharov quotes}

Ben Gurion uses the same utopian jargon as Sakharov: workers, scientists, intelligensia, "men of science", and envisages the same sort of convergence based on similar principles; but Ben Gurion adds a religious element.

In his book BEN-GURION LOOKS AT THE BIBLE (translated by JONATHAN
KOLATCH, 1972) he wrote:

"The great Jewish scientists and philosophers of the last few generations - Spinoza, Einstein, Freud, Robert Oppenheimer and others - were natives of Europe and America." (p. 111). http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bengur-bible.html

Those "men of science" show up again later:

"from the days of Spinoza to Marx, Freud, Einstein and the rest of the great Jewish scientists" (p. 287), http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bengur-bible.html

and in his article in LOOK magazine of January 16, 1962, envisaging a World Government ... "the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising political importance of men of science, maytransform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy". http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bengur62.jpg

Ben Gurion, upholding Marxism of the Trotskyist kind but rejecting Stalinism (because Stalin had stolen the Jewish conspiracy, i.e. returned power to the Russians), was advocating Convergence between the U.S. & the U.S.S.R.

Einstein, Marx and Freud - "great Jewish scientists" - are a "holy trinity" of our time. Einstein's apotheosis is examined at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/einstein.html.

Sakharov's Jewish wife Elena Bonner continued his activities after his death.

Clearly, Gorbachev was following the path Sakharov enunciated.

What about today?

Political Correctness - forcing us dissidents to the margins of society. Gay Marriage - the victory of Androgyny, the final nail in the coffin of complementarity between men and women. Open Borders - free movement across national boundaries, undermining any pretense of sovereignty. The World Court - depicting all those it tries & punishes as “new Hitlers”. The Kyoto Protocol - I do support simple living, energy efficiency, & reduced waste; but the Kyoto Protocol is also an instrument of World Government.

-
Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers