Get PJ Media on your Apple

Say No To Socialism

The Gods of Socialism

June 20th, 2012 - 7:11 am

In my former life, I walked in all kinds of Marxist moccasins over many miles and for many years, and I know for a fact that Marxism, no matter how disguised, always begins its way to power by preaching the need to change — a society, a country, a group of countries, the whole world. Of course, people everywhere want their leaders to do a better job than their predecessors did. But “change” is also the very quintessence of Marxism, which is built upon the dialectical materialist tenet that “quantitative changes generate qualitative transformations.” (Translation for the media savvy: If you say it often enough, it becomes the truth.)

In 2008 I could hardly believe my ears when “change” became the electoral motto of the Democratic Party’s campaign for the White House. “Change” was bursting forth everywhere like a biblical shibboleth, distinguishing that party from the rest of the world.

The leaders of the Democratic Party painted the United States of America, the undisputed leader of the Free World, as a “decaying, racist, capitalist realm” unable to provide medical care for the poor, to rebuild her “crumbling schools,” to replace the “shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race,” and it pledged to “change” it by redistributing its wealth. Our media jumped in, and transformed the Democratic Party’s “change” into a nationwide tsunami.

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Click here and have fun.

The frenzy over “change” brought back vivid memories to me of the campaigns I used to be involved with during my years in Romania promoting the election of Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu. “Change” was Ceausescu’s electoral motto, as well. When he came to power, he painted Romania as a decaying, corrupt, economically devastated country, and he pledged to “change” it by redistributing its wealth. That lie, repeated hundreds of times, became the truth. Of course, he certainly did “change” what had been the picturesque, pastoral country of Romania. Here is a sample of Ceausescu’s devastated, polluted transformation. Here is another. And one more. And another one.

I do not intend to compare the leaders of our Democratic Party with a monster like Ceausescu, but their common electoral motto gives me reason to believe that both arrived at their destination traveling in the same Marxist boat.

Change” is not only the quintessence of Marxism, it is its credo as well. Marxists believes that the nationalization of the economy generates not only political and social changes, but spiritual changes. Eventually, these changes make Marxism a religion — the only religion permitted — and the Marxist leader the only god allowed. The religious adulation of Lenin and Stalin, which filled oceans of newsprint and generated international respect for Marxism and admiration for its leaders, may well be one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated in history. Its lingering tentacles live on. Even today, visitors in Moscow wait patiently in long lines in order to pay their respects to Lenin’s embalmed body, which has been exposed as a holy relic in Moscow’s Red Square Mausoleum since shortly after his death in 1924.

My personal experience with a “spiritual” Marxist “change” began in September 1944, when the Soviet Red Army “liberated” the Kingdom of Romania from Nazi occupation. Stalin publicly portrayed that serene sovereign nation as a decaying capitalist country, and he began “changing” it into what he called “a Socialist paradise.” At that time I was not yet familiar with the organic connection between “change,” Marxism, and the nauseating cult of personality. Soon, however, my native Romania — an idyllic Francophile country whose capital, Bucharest, was nicknamed Le Petit Paris — was changed into a monument to the Marxist who was changing it. Stalin became Romania’s new god. Stalin portraits, Stalin statues, Stalin streets, Stalin boulevards, Stalin plazas, and Stalin factories sprouted up like mushrooms all over the country. Romania even got its own Stalin city.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments»

Marx’s Ghost

June 9th, 2012 - 12:00 am

I grew up with the picture of the U.S. president hanging on the wall of our house in Bucharest. My father, who spent most of his life working for the General Motors dealership in Romania, loved America, but he never set foot in this country. For him, America was just the place of his dreams, thousands of miles away. For him, the American president was its tangible symbol. At the end of WWII, we had President Truman on the wall. For us and for many millions around the world, he had saved civilization from the barbarism of Nazism, and he had restored our freedom — for a while. From the Voice of America and the BBC we learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.

A few days after the 2004 Democratic National Convention ended, Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the Democratic contender for the White House, stated that four more years of the Bush administration meant four more years of hell for America.[i] Like Teresa, I am also an American immigrant, and I have spent my 34 American years under six presidents — some better than others — but I have always felt that I was living in paradise.

I still keep the picture of the American president on the wall in my home, and I will continue to keep it there until the end of my days. To me, the meaning of his office transcends the views of its occupant. The president of the United States symbolizes this greatest country on Earth, and he embodies the essence of our unique democracy: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. He is also the leader of the free world, and the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military and intelligence force on Earth.

Next November, we will face a crucial election. For the first time in the history of this country, the voters will decide whether to preserve America’s traditional capitalism, which made the U.S. the undisputed leader of the world, or to transform the U.S. into a permanently debt-ridden socialist realm marching to the tune of Marx’s utopian “to each according to his need.” Unfortunately, our conservative movement has focused this critical electoral campaign almost exclusively on an anti-Obama strategy. This may not be a winning line of attack.

President Obama has indeed bought into the siren call of Marxism, as I myself once did, along with millions of others like me around the world — even including former President Reagan — when we were young and innocent. But President Obama did not come to power following a coup d’état. He was brought to the White House by 65,182,692 Americans who were proud that the U.S. had become mature enough to elect a black president. They were also overcome by Obama’s unparalleled self-confidence on stage and by his outstanding oratory, a combination that succeeded in neutralizing even such incredible disasters as the one caused by the Marxist Rev. Jeremiah Wright — the “adviser for change” of Obama’s 2008 electoral campaign who was caught on videotape screaming “God damn America.” Moreover, the electorate was entranced to such a degree by Obama’s disarming smile that no one has yet dared to ask him why the picture of Marxist idol Che Guevara was hanging on the wall of his campaign office in Houston — as was accidentally televised worldwide in February 2008. Then there was also President Obama’s flamboyance and his flair for grandiose staging. During the 2008 election campaign he easily filled entire stadiums with fascinated admirers. Some of those electoral gatherings looked like Stalinist revival meetings — over eighty thousand people were assembled in front of the now famous faux-Greek temple resembling the White House that had been erected in Denver.

Most of those people are likely to vote for President Obama again, unless our conservative movement will change its current electoral strategy of portraying him personally as the enemy. If history is any guide, this strategy will backfire. The 2004 Democratic National Convention was entirely focused on denigrating President George W. Bush. Remember? One after the other, the participants portrayed him as a “renegade,” a “liar,” a “deceiver,” a “fraud” who had concocted a war for personal gain. One delegate, now governor of Maryland, even stated that he was more worried about Bush than about al-Qaeda. A retired four-star general and former commander of NATO called President Bush a “deserter,” and looked the other way while one of his supporters compared America’s president to Hitler. The result? Bush was easily re-elected. He also won an outright majority of the popular vote.

Unity in a time of war is what made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans gave up their lives in order to defeat Nazism and the Holocaust, but their country remained sturdily united around its commander-in-chief. “Attacking Obama will be counterproductive for Republicans,” warned Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard’s executive editor.[ii] I second his statement.

Robert Kennedy — not one of my favorite people — once said: “I do not run for the presidency merely to oppose any man but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have strong feelings about what must be done.” Robert Kennedy understood what the presidency was all about, whatever we may think of what he planned to do if given the mandate, and he seems to be even more right today than in his time.

Our country is on a very perilous course.

An April 2009 Rasmussen poll showed that only 53% of Americans preferred capitalism to socialism; 27% were unsure, and 20% strongly opted for socialism. Even Russia’s Pravda chaffed: “It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.” One of the most popular nightclubs in New York City’s East Village is the “KGB Bar.” The place is jammed by Marxist writers and journalists, who read from their own scribblings and preach the need to redistribute America’s wealth.

Why would so many citizens of the United States, a country that for most of the last century sheltered capitalist economics and law-abiding freedoms from the evil plague of socialism, now suddenly be succumbing to Marx’s noxious charms?

Pages: 1 2 3 | Comments»

The Socialist Mask of Marxism

June 4th, 2012 - 12:00 am

History usually repeats itself, and if you have lived two lives, as I have done, you have a good chance of seeing that re-enactment with your own eyes. In 1978, I paid with two death sentences from my native Romania for helping her people rid themselves of their Marxist dictatorship, carefully disguised as socialism. Thirty years later I witnessed how the same Marxism, camouflaged as socialism, began infecting the shores of my adoptive country, the United States, which had just won a 44-year Cold War against Marxism and against its earthly incarnation, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In a 2008 column titled “Big Political Shifts Are Underway,” Joelle Fishman, chairman of the Action Commission of the Communist Party USA, strongly endorsed the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, appealing to all working people in the United States to back Senator Barack Obama, in order to provide “a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right.”

That new alliance between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party was a first in the history of the United States, the world’s headquarters of democracy and free enterprise. In November 2008, over 65 million Americans who were unable to identify the stealth virus of Marxism that was infecting the Democratic Party voted to give this party the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Although we now live in an age of technology, we still do not have an instrument that can scientifically measure to what extent the Communist endorsement of the Democratic Party influenced the results of the 2008 election. But if there had been any doubt in my mind that the Democratic and the Communist parties had secretly joined forces, that doubt was erased in 2009, when Van Jones, part of a left fringe of declared communists, became the White House’s green jobs czar. Soon after that, the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress began dutifuly following in Marx’s footsteps by redistributing our country’s wealth and putting under government control a part of its health care, banking system, and automobile industry.

Today it is considered bad manners even to mention the word Marxism, a doctrine that killed some 94 million people and transformed a third of the world into feudal societies in the middle of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there is an old saying: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Let’s try to stand the heat for a few minutes, and poke our noses into Karl Marx’s kitchen.

In his Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx urged his followers to replace capitalism with communism via a “socialist redistribution of wealth,” which “should displace capitalism and precede communism.” Marx advocated ten “despotic inroads on the rights of property,” and he called them the ten planks of communism. The most important are:

  • A progressive or graduated income tax;
  • Abolition of rights of inheritance;
  • Centralization of credit in the hands of the state;
  • Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
  • Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.[iii]

If you know the Manifesto, you will think Marx himself wrote the Democratic Party’s 2012 electoral campaign, which contains all of the above planks of Marxism. If you don’t know the Manifesto, click here and you’ll get it from the horse’s mouth.

On August 3, 2011, the CPUSA again threw its support to the Democratic Party. “It may be early in the campaign season, but the Communist Party USA already has seen fit to endorse Barack Obama for the 2012 election,” stated Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party, in an article published in the People’s Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA. Webb explained (emphasis as in the original):

Despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people’s agenda. If, on the other hand, the Republicans had been victorious in 2008, the character of class and democratic struggles would have unfolded very differently. Our movement would have been on the defensive from Day One, the Democrats would be running for cover, and the Republicans would have an unfettered hand in their efforts to liquidate the welfare state, roll back the rights revolution of the 1930s and 1960s, and crush the people’s movement – labor in the first place.

In November, the United States will indeed face one of the most important elections in its history. On the surface, the voters will decide which of our two main political parties will control the White House and the U.S. Congress. In fact, the voters will chose between keeping the country the leader of the Free World, or allowing the United States to be further infected by the virus of Marxism.

It seems that Artur Davis, former co-chairman of President Barak Obama’s presidentail campaign, who seconded his official nomination at the 2008 Democratic Convention, has seen the light. Davis was the sole member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against Obama’s health-care legislation in 2010. A couple of days ago, he resigned from the Democratic Party. “Wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities,” Davis said. ”Frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country. I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again. I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured.”

Pages: 1 2 | Comments»