Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

The American Left's Infatuation With Communism

Posted by on Aug. 17, 2017 at 5:30 PM
  • 5 Replies

The American Left's Infatuation With Communism

By Arnold Ahlert

2017-08-17-fdd901cb_large.jpg

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the two revolutions that swept through Russia, ending the reign of the czarists and enabling the rise of radical Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin. Since then communist ideology has precipitated the deaths of more than 100 million people — and counting.

The riot in Charlottesville last Saturday is a stark reminder of the American Left's dubious double standard with regard to virulent ideologies. While leftists are correctly contemptuous of the Nazism that forms the foundation of white supremacist hate groups, they retain a soft spot in their hearts for Communism.

And yet both ideologies are flip sides of the same totalitarian coin.

For most leftists, and many other Americans, Hitler's Third Reich remains the ultimate expression of racist, murderous hate. Yet among the 20th century's worst mass murderers, Adolf Hitler comes in third — by a wide margin. By most historical estimates, Hitler murdered six million Jews and an additional five million others, bringing his total to 11 million.

Josef Stalin's total is conventionally put at 20 million killed, with some historians contending it may be twice that number.

Both men pale in comparison to Mao Zedung. Chairman Mao bears responsibility for 40 to 77 million killed, with the discrepancy owing to an ongoing historical argument over whether the mass starvation of millions in China's great famine (1958-1961) was intentional or not. Most historians lean toward the higher number.

Mao and Stalin were Communism's superstars, but there were other mass murderers like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, who ruled Cambodia from 1975-1979 and killed up to two million people. Their ascendance was part of the Communist takeover of the Southeast Asian Peninsula following America's withdrawal from Vietnam, whose own fall to Communism was aided and abetted by a Democrat-controlled Congress that cut funding to South Vietnam's government from $700 million in 1974 to only $300 million the following year. This enabled Hanoi's Communist takeover and additional mass murders.

So why is Hitler, as opposed to Mao or Stalin, the embodiment of evil? Because the American Left has never completely rejected its belief in the philosophy of Communism and its radical egalitarian, collectivist worldview. Leftists only wish to paint the American Right as racist, and thus use Nazis as a bludgeon.

Moreover, a certain level of nostalgia remains the order of the day. In a series of articles called "Red Century," The New York Times explored an ideology it alternately acknowledged as horrific yet "morally complex."

Morally bankrupt is more like it, despite Times columnist and Democratic Socialists of America vice chairman Bhaskar Sunkara's pathetic attempt to separate the message from the messengers. "We may reject the version of Lenin and the Bolsheviks as crazed demons and choose to see them as well-intentioned people trying to build a better world out of a crisis, but we must work out how to avoid their failures," he insists.

Such contemptible nonsense courtesy of the Times is nothing new. Reporter Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for singing Stalin's praises during a Ukrainian famine that killed 10 million in 1932. Yet as Sunkara indicates, Duranty's apologist take — "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" — remains ideologically operational.

It also remains literally operational in Venezuela, whose implosion reveals the rank ignorance of leftist useful idiots like Jesse Jackson, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Danny Glover, Oliver Stone and others who hailed the "21st century Socialism" that is devolving into totalitarian tyranny.

The same totalitarian tyranny entrenched in North Korea.

To communist sympathizers and adherents, none of it matters. Nor does it matter that Communism's founders, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, were avowed racists and anti-Semites. Both expressed contempt for Mexicans, politicians with "n—ger-like" features, a quality Engels referred to as a "degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us," and the "huckstering" Marx referred to as the "worldly religion of the Jew."

"The progressive blind spot to communism reflects historical ignorance on the part of Americans and Europeans," columnist Michael Rubin asserts.

In America, it is cultivated ignorance. Thus 40% of Millennials believe it's acceptable to suppress offensive speech about minorities, while minorities and their equally clueless allies countenance elimination of history itself, emulating the Islamic State, as well as the Nazis who destroyed any piece of art Hitler found offensive.

And on America's college campuses, where leftists routinely shut down speech they define as "hate" — employing violence if necessary to do so — they are emulating Communist China's Red Guard movement that precipitated attacks on those whose traditional views were insufficiently "revolutionary."

The Left's cultivation of communist ideas has occurred for decades. In 1993, Library of Congress experts traveled to Moscow to copy previously secret records of Communist Party USA activities that had been sent to the Soviet Union for safekeeping. They reveal irrefutable evidence of cooperation between the Soviets and American leftists from the '20s through the '40s. Coded Soviet intercepts known as the Venona Papers confirmed that infiltration, vindicating much of what Sen. Joseph McCarthy asserted during the '50s, despite his continuing status as the Left's most enduring icon of evil.

In the '60s, the college students who recoiled in the presence of a swastika did so while wearing Che Guevara T-shirts and singing the praises of Communist Party U.S.A. radicals like Angela Davis. It was also a time when future failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was learning and teaching the revolutionary tactics of communist sympathizer Saul Alinsky — tactics Barack Obama perfected in winning the presidency.

In the '70s and '80s, Democrats pursued their admiration of the Soviet Union with vigor, making peace trips to the USSR, often as members of communist-created front groups. And when Ronald Reagan called the Soviets the "evil empire" they actually were, Democrats painted him as a warmonger who would lead the nation to nuclear holocaust. Moreover, the party that currently excoriates Donald Trump for his Russian connections apparently had no problem when Ted Kennedy offered to help the Soviets thwart Reagan's re-election.

Most recently, the Obama administration had at least two communist sympathizers working for it: former White House Communication Director Anita Dunn, who professed admiration for Mao Zedung, and former CIA Director John Brennan, who voted for Communist Party candidate Gus Hall in 1980. As for Obama himself, a video from 1995 shows him stating he was taught about race relations by Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.

"Until the left, and all the institutions influenced by the left, acknowledge how evil communism has been, we will continue to live in a morally confused world," argues Dennis Prager.

Of course, as Prager knows full well, the American Left embraces Communism. Moreover, moral confusion is a necessary component of leftist power. When right and wrong are relative, "by any means necessary" becomes a "reasonable" substitute. Exhibit A is a despicable Washington Post op-ed by Johns Hopkins University associate professor N.D.B. Connolly, who insists leftist "generic solutions" to racism, etc. aren't working.

What to do instead? "Start throwing rocks," he advises.

Thus, 100 years and 100 million deaths later, the American Left's infatuation with Communism remains undimmed. And as decent Americans recoil in disgust, the historical purges remain ongoing, begging the inevitable question:

When do the book burnings begin?

by on Aug. 17, 2017 at 5:30 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-5):
Quakercaoimhe
by Member on Aug. 17, 2017 at 5:36 PM
2 moms liked this

lmfao

Typical reactionary conservative arguement. If you can even call it that. Stop posting propaganda

Billiejeens
by The Librarian on Aug. 17, 2017 at 5:38 PM

Hi new member.

It is a pleasure to speak with you today.

Piss Off.

Quoting Quakercaoimhe:

lmfaoTypical reactionary conservative arguement. If you can even call it that. Stop posting propaganda


Quakercaoimhe
by Member on Aug. 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM
2 moms liked this

Oh no the pleasure was mine. It's not everday I run into someone who genuinely thinks fascism and Communism are the same thing and that Prager is a reliable source. 

Quoting Billiejeens:

Hi new member.

It is a pleasure to speak with you today.

Piss Off.

Quoting Quakercaoimhe:

lmfaoTypical reactionary conservative arguement. If you can even call it that. Stop posting propaganda



Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Aug. 18, 2017 at 5:24 AM

See the thread 

Terminology

for more examples.

Quoting Quakercaoimhe:

Oh no the pleasure was mine. It's not everday I run into someone who genuinely thinks fascism and Communism are the same thing and that Prager is a reliable source. 

Quoting Billiejeens:

Hi new member.

It is a pleasure to speak with you today.

Piss Off.

Quoting Quakercaoimhe:

lmfaoTypical reactionary conservative arguement. If you can even call it that. Stop posting propaganda



12hellokitty
by Ruby Member on Aug. 18, 2017 at 6:44 AM
1 mom liked this

Looks like the left is skipping the book burnings and heading straight to blowing stuff up.


Vice Editor: ‘Let’s Blow Up Mount Rushmore’

Corporate-owned Vice Magazine posted an article urging “Let’s Blow Up Mount Rushmore” which called for Americans’ politics, culture, and history to be purified by political fire.

“Let’s take with us the righteous ideas and beliefs and leave everything else on the pyre,” says the article about Rushmore by Wilbert Cooper, who is a senior editor at Vice.com. The media company is part-owned by Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox, and by A&E Networks, which is fully owned by Hearst Communications and Disney-ABC Television Group. According to Cooper:

More than ever, old monuments to famous white American men are being threatened … [because] the only way we can help America fulfill her promise is by shedding the faith and facing the truth. A big part of that process probably involves taking those men we’ve placed so high and bringing them back down to Earth where we can judge them for who they really were… As long as we allow those men to be cults of personality who exist beyond reproach, we’re never going to be able to see them for all of their good and all of their evil.

The article’s headline was later changed to “Let’s Get Rid of Mount Rushmore.”

Vice also deleted a tweet promoting the first headline:

The company explained why it delete the tweet and headline, saying:

Cooper argues that the nation’s historical markers and monuments help preserve a political system of racial exploitation and inequality, and should be erased to help build a new society.

It’s hard to be critical of a system when that system becomes an article of faith, filled with myths (the cherry tree), deities (Founding Fathers), and notions of salvation (the City on a Hill). It’s going to be impossible to improve America if we can’t be honest about its origins and its past. Her fruit is born from violence and greed, watered by the blood of my ancestors.

Cooper downplays America’s political, cultural, economic and technological contributions to the world, and he also ignores near-term debates about investments, wages and immigration reform, education improvements, economic opportunity and much else in favor of a high-emotion campaign to erase historical symbols on the nation’s boulevards:

Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook. But monuments built by the state are not history—they are manifestations of power. They don’t tell you who, what, why, or how something happened. Instead, they just inform you who’s in control. This is even true with the Confederate statues, even though the South lost the war. The reality is that the enshrinement of those generals in statues across the nation mostly did not happen right after the war as a tribute to lost struggle. Instead, they were built in the early 1900s and the 1960s, when it was crucial for those in power to signal that white supremacy would endure in the face of Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, and the civil rights movement. Erecting these statues amounted to power moves by white people who felt threatened. And now that they are being toppled, and neo-Nazis fight against their removal, their true meaning has become clearer than ever.

…. I’m not sure that a monument put on by the state, which still perpetuates violence across the world and has immense inequality here at home, could ever produce a work that truly honors the real, radical legacy of Dr. King. King was a man who damned capitalism and war as much as he strived for black boys and black girls to hold hands with white boys and white girls.

Read it all here.

Cooper’s argument for the erasure of historical markers, such as statues, echoes the growing demand from other left-wingers for a culture war that would sweep away Americans’ political traditions and heroes. Those targeted heroes include two of the men memorialized on Mount Rushmore — Thomas Jefferson, who served as both a president and as the chief author of the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment, and also General and President George Washington, who declined offers to become a dictator after winning the Revolutionary War.

Those targeted heroes and political ideas include those symbolized by two of the men memorialized on Mount Rushmore — Thomas Jefferson, who served as both a president and as the chief author of the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment, and also General and President George Washington, who declined offers to become a dictator after winning the Revolutionary War.

In prior articles, Cooper has focused on racial inequalities even when writing about non-racial debates, such as the debate over the impact of imported labor on Americans’ wages. Shortly before the 2016 election, for example, he urged African-American voters to ignore candidate Donald Trump’s promise of pro-American immigration reform, writing:

When Trump and his ilk make immigration a bogeyman, they conveniently ignore the systemic racism blacks have been facing for decades. It’s a lot easier to harp on the specter of immigrants stealing jobs than it is to explain how mass incarceration and housing discrimination have actually robbed generations of black people of opportunity and wealth.

If you’re one of the black folks who’s worried about our people’s economic prospects in this country, remember that the key isn’t finding a scapegoat or a shortcut to the problem at hand. Closing inequality between black and white can’t be done by building a wall to keep out people, who in many instances, look like you. Instead, it begins with the very real work of addressing the institutional racism that has been essential to this country long before there was even a border to cross.

Read his article here.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)