MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Marxists’

The Taboo Against Truth

Posted by M. C. on December 10, 2019

Of Winston Churchill, Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote:

He turned over to the Soviet command the Cossack corps of 90,000 men. Along with them he also handed over many wagonloads of old people, women, and children.… This great hero, monuments to whom will in time cover all England, ordered that they, too, be surrendered to their deaths.24

The great crime that is today virtually forgotten was the expulsion starting in 1945 of the Germans from their centuries-old homelands in East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, Sudetenland, and elsewhere. About 16 million persons were displaced, with about 2 million of them dying in the process.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/12/ralph-raico/732503-2/

By

[First published as “The Taboo Against Truth: Holocausts and the Historians,” Liberty, September 1989.]

Speaking truth to power” is not easy when you support that power. Perhaps this is the reason why so few Western historians are willing to tell the whole truth about state crimes during this century.

Last fall [1988 —Ed.] the Moscow News reported the discovery by two archaeologist-historians of mass graves at Kuropaty, near Minsk, in the Soviet republic of Byelorussia.1 The scholars at first estimated that the victims numbered around 102,000, a figure that was later revised to 250–300,000.2 Interviews with older inhabitants of the village revealed that, from 1937 until June 1941, when the Germans invaded, the killings never stopped. “For five years, we couldn’t sleep at night because of all the shooting,” one witness said.

Then in March, a Soviet commission finally conceded that the mass graves at Bykovnia, outside of Kiev, were the result not of the Nazis’ work, as formerly was maintained, but of the industry of Stalin’s secret police. Some 200–300,000 persons were killed at Bykovnia, according to unofficial estimates.3

These graves represent a small fraction of the human sacrifice that an elite of revolutionary Marxists offered up to their ideological fetish. How many died under Stalin alone, from the shootings, the terror famine, and the forced-labor camps, is uncertain. Writing in a Moscow journal, Roy Medvedev, the dissident Soviet Marxist, put the number at around 20 million, a figure the sovietologist Stephen F. Cohen views as conservative.4 Robert Conquest’s estimate is between 20 million and 30 million or more,5 while Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko suggests 41 million deaths between 1930 and 1941.6

By everyone’s account, most of the victims were killed before the United States and Britain welcomed the Soviet Union as their ally in June 1941. Yet by then, the evidence concerning at least very widespread Communist killings was available to anyone willing to listen.

If glasnost proceeds and if the whole truth about the Lenin and Stalin eras comes to light, educated opinion in the West will be forced to reassess some of its most deeply cherished views. On a minor note, Stalinist sympathizers like Lillian Hellman, Frieda Kirchwey, and Owen Lattimore will perhaps not be lionized quite as much as before. More important, there will have to be a reevaluation of what it meant for the British and American governments to have befriended Soviet Russia in the Second World War and heaped fulsome praise on its leader. That war will inevitably lose some of its glory as the pristinely pure crusade led by the larger-than-life heroes Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Inevitably, too, comparisons with what is commonly known as the Holocaust will emerge.

The “Dispute of Historians”

Such comparisons have been at the center of the raging controversy in the Federal Republic of Germany that has been labeled the Historikerstreit, or dispute of historians, and has now become an international cause célèbre. It erupted primarily because of the work of Ernst Nolte, of the Free University of Berlin, author of the highly acclaimed Three Faces of Fascism, published in the United States in 1966. In several important essays, in a large book published in 1987, The European Civil War, 1917–1945, and in a volume of responses to his critics,7 Nolte declined to treat the Nazi massacre of the Jews in the conventional fashion.

These graves represent a small fraction of the human sacrifice that an elite of revolutionary Marxists offered up to their ideological fetish.

He refused, that is, to deal with it metaphysically, as a unique object of evil, existing there in a small segment of history, in a nearly perfect vacuum, with at most merely ideological links to racist and Social Darwinist thought of the preceding century. Instead, without denying the importance of ideology, he attempted to set the Holocaust in the context of the history of Europe in the first decades of the 20th century. His aim was in no way to excuse the mass murder of the Jews, or to diminish the guilt of the Nazis for this crime dreadful beyond words. But he insisted that this mass murder must not lead us to forget others, particularly those that might stand in a causal relationship to it.

Briefly, Nolte’s thesis is that it was the Communists who introduced into modern Europe the awful fact and terrifying threat of the killing of civilians on a vast scale, implying the extermination of whole categories of persons. (One Old Bolshevik, Zinoviev, spoke openly as early as 1918 of the need to eliminate 10,000,000 of the people of Russia.) In the years and decades following the Russian Revolution, middle-class, upper-class, Catholic, and other Europeans were well aware of this fact, and for them especially the threat was a very real one. This helps to account for the violent hatred shown to their own domestic Communists in the various European countries by Catholics, conservatives, fascists, and even Social Democrats.

Nolte’s thesis continues: those who became the Nazi elite were well-informed regarding events in Russia, via White Russian and Baltic German émigrés (who even exaggerated the extent of the first, Leninist atrocities). In their minds, as in those of right-wingers generally, the Bolshevik acts were transformed, irrationally, into Jewish acts, a transformation helped along by the existence of a high proportion of Jews among the early Bolshevik leaders. (Inclined to anti-Semitism from the start, the rightists ignored the fact that, as Nolte points out, the proportion among the Mensheviks was higher, and, of course, the great majority of the European Jews were never Communists.) A similar, ideologically mandated displacement, however, occurred among the Communists themselves: after the assassination of Uritsky and the attempted assassination of Lenin by Social Revolutionaries, for instance, hundreds of “bourgeois” hostages were executed.

The Communists never ceased proclaiming that all of their enemies were tools of a single conspiracy of the “world bourgeoisie.”

The facts regarding the Ukrainian terror famine of the early 1930s and the Stalinist gulag were also known in broad outline in European right-wing circles. When all is said and done, Nolte concludes, “the Gulag came before Auschwitz.” If it had not been for what happened in Soviet Russia, European fascism, especially Nazism and the Nazi massacre of the Jews,8 would most probably not have been what they were.

The Onslaught on Nolte

The rest here

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Mr. Bill and the Marxists – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 15, 2019

Mr. Bill no doubt felt smug and oh-so-holier-than-capitalists for winking at a holdup—of himself, no less. But I speak as one suffering the effects of Gates’ purloined billions. And I take his insouciance towards financing such evil personally.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/becky-akers/mr-bill-and-the-marxists/

By

Marxism has claimed its myriads of victims, but none of them are sorrier or more craven than American billionaires. These guys don’t just turn the other cheek to communists: they kneel and kiss their butts. Then they carefully wipe any spittle from their enemies’ posteriors, chirping about democracy and equality. As if abject submission has ever protected anyone anywhere.

I don’t understand the relationship between staggering affluence and cojones, but for sure it’s an inverse one. You’d think it would be the other way round: I mean, how many folks will tell a billionaire to take a hike? Even fewer will risk punching him out.

Surely Mr. Billionaire understands this; surely the hordes he employs, whether professionally or personally, have shown him that when boots are licked, it’s the Guccis on his own feet, not the hoi polloi’s $30 Frogg Toggs, that wind up glistening.

But no. Mr. Bill fawns and cringes when Marxists rudely—but I repeat myself—pry into his finances. He cowers as they rain their blows, plasters a sick, “please-don’t-hit-me-too-hard” smile on his face, and refuses to turn the tables on his interrogators, however easy it may be and no matter how richly they deserve it.

Indeed, an actual Mr. Bill—as in Gates—provides the latest example. Microsoft’s co-founder is a less-than-sympathetic character: not only does he grovel to his persecutors, “I’m all for super progressive tax systems,” but when Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren schemes to steal his fortune, he defends neither it nor himself.

So we will. Because theft is theft, whether it’s a buck or a billion, whether the mugger in the alleyway despoils us or the IRS does.

For starters, Fauxcahontas lives in a glass mansion: her estimated worth in 2019 is “$8.75 million…, a figure that is based on various financial statements, most notably the release of her federal tax returns…” Yep, small potatoes next to Mr. Bill’s stash—but lavish when compared to a serf’s, as is true of all Our Rulers. Why doesn’t this hypocrite donate her $8.75 million before coveting other people’s money?

Second, little more than a year ago, a genetics test that Fauxcahontas herself initiated proved she’s a liar who parlayed one measly ancestor from an indigenous tribe into a professorship. (N.B: most Americans whose families arrived here in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries can boast of such a forbear.) How is it that this cheat dares show her face, let alone cloaks thievery in jargon and sanctimony? Why aren’t Americans shunning and mocking her? Why aren’t they boycotting a media that covers rather than condemns her? I’m no fan of The Donald, but at least he ridicules this mendacious Marxist.

Gates should take a lesson. And yet he’s running scared. Responding last week to Fauxcahontas’ threats of grand theft, he snivelled, “‘I’ve paid more than anyone in taxes. If I had to pay $20 billion, it’s fine”…

Mr. Bill no doubt felt smug and oh-so-holier-than-capitalists for winking at a holdup—of himself, no less. But I speak as one suffering the effects of Gates’ purloined billions. And I take his insouciance towards financing such evil personally.

Mr. Bill, your taxes buy the US government more bureaucrats and more programs to destroy my freedom. They supply the NSA with more spooks to eavesdrop on my communications. They hire more Thieves and Sexual Assailants to molest passengers at airports, depriving me of overseas travel and of quick, easy hops around the ol’ Homeland. They purchase propaganda from the Department of Brainwashing–ah, Education and the FCC to whitewash these crimes while fooling many of my friends and family. Thanks in part to you, Mr. Bill, revolt against such revolting tyranny appears unlikely.

And this is only domestically: let’s survey the mischief your opulence funds abroad. It recruits cannon fodder for the US Empire. It then arms those kids to slaughter innocents before they themselves bleed out in some desert waste 6000 miles from home. Believe me, Mr. Bill, if you ever watch parents grieve over a body-bag, you’ll fight to keep every last dollar in your wallet, where it belongs.

Meanwhile, the fodder that survives comes home to join the cops, the TSA, or other occupying forces. And again, the wealth your state and local governments loot from you not only pays those cops to boss or even arrest and cage me, it enlists new ones.

Gates does have his limits, however: he balks “when you say I should pay $100 billion[.] OK, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over…” But he apparently feared he’d gone too far for our latter-day Stalins and added, “I’m just kidding.”

Go ahead and puke while I admonish Mr. Bill. Yo, Jellyfish: you’ve already conceded that the kleptomaniacal State should pick your pockets. Ergo, the predators, not you, decide how much they’ll lift. That’s why a reporter helpfully informs us, “Bill Gates’ net worth currently stands at $106 billion.” Capisce, Mr. Bill? We are to infer that robbing you is perfectly OK. That’s the way the State in general and Marxism in particular works.

Of course, no advocacy of communism is complete unless Bernie Sanders contributes his senseless two cents. “Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion,” the old coot  “tweeted on Thursday. ‘We could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country.’”

Um, Coot? The federal government will extort over $3.4 trillion from us this year (scroll to page 117 at the link). That means “we” already have $100 billion—in fact, many multiples of $100 billion. Perhaps handing Leviathan even more bucks is a waste, ya think?

Regrettably, instead of cutting his losses, Mr. Bill also “respond[ed] to a question about whether he would speak with [Fauxcahontas] about his concerns”: “You know, I’m not sure how open-minded she is or that she’d be willing to sit down with someone who has large amounts of money…”

Oh, honestly, Mr. Bill: how did anyone as naive as you become CEO of Microsoft? Fauxcahontas is a politician. And even the most negligible amount of money, to say nothing of assets as sizable as yours, snares politicians more fatally than heroin does addicts: “Warren was eager [oh, I’ll bet] to have a sit-down with the Microsoft billionaire, as she said in a tweet Wednesday. ‘I’m always happy to meet with people, even if we have different views. @BillGates, if we get the chance, I’d love to explain exactly how much you’d pay under my wealth tax. (I promise it’s not $100 billion.)’…”

Yeah, more like $106 billion.

Be seeing you

mark of the beast

The Mark of the Beast

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Nazis Were Marxists

Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2019

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html#ixzz5w3Sa1N6w

By Bruce Walker

The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe.  Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists — all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater. 

The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater.  Let us consider the original Nazi movement and its evolution.  The National Socialist movement began in Austria with Walter Riehl, Rudolf Jung and Hans Knirsch, who were, as M.W. Fodor relates in his book South of Hitler, the three men who founded the National Socialist Party in Austria, and hence indirectly in Germany.  In November, 1910, these men launched what they called the Deutschsoziale Arbeiterpartei. That party was successful politically.  It established its program at Inglau in 1914.

What was this program?  It  was against social and political reaction, for the working class, against the church and against the capitalist classes.  This party eventually adopted the name Deutsche Nationalsozialistche Arbeiter Partei, which, except for the order of the words, is the same name as “Nazi.” In May 1918, the German National Socialist Workers Party selected the Harkendruez, or swastika, as its symbol.  Both Hitler and Anton Drexler, the nominal founder of the Nazi Party, corresponded with this earlier, anti-capitalistic and anti-church party.

 

Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism.  Emile Lorimer, in his 1939 book, What Hitler Wants, writes about Hitler during these Vienna years that Hitler already had felt great sympathy for the trade unions and antipathy toward employers.  He attended sessions of the Austrian Parliament.  Hitler was not, as many have portrayed him, a political neophyte in 1914.

 

The very term “National Socialist” was not invented by Hitler nor was it unique to Germany.  Eduard Benes, President of Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich Conference, was a leader of the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. Ironically, at the time of the Munich Conference, out of the fourteen political parties in the Snemovna (the lower chamber of the Czechoslovakian legislature) the party most opposed to Hitler was the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. The Fascist Party in Czechoslovakia was also anti-Nazi.

 

The first and only platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for very Leftist economic policies.  Among other things, this platform called for the death penalty for war profiteering, the confiscation of all income unearned by work, the acquisition of a controlling interest by the people in all big business organizations and so on.  Otto Strasser, the brother and fellow Nazi of Gregor Strasser, who was the second leading Nazi for much of the Nazi Party’s existence, in his 1940 book, Hitler and I revealed his ideology before he found a home in the Nazi Party.  In his own words Otto Strasser wrote: “I was a young student of law and economics, a Left Wing student leader.”

Consider the following text from that platform adopted in Munich on February 20, 1920 and ask yourself whether it sounds like the notional Right or the very real Left: 

“We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.  The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all.  Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests.  We demand profit sharing in big business.  We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.  The government must undertake the improvement of public health.”
Consider these remarks of Nazi leaders.  Hitler on May 1, 1927: 
 “We are socialists.  We are enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” 
Goebbels, who was the only major Nazi leader who stayed with Hitler to the very end, wrote in Der Angriff in 1928:


“The worker in a capitalist state – that is his greatest misfortune – no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things.  He has become a machine.”

That image sounds almost identical to what Charlie Chaplin, a Marxist, was portraying in his caricature of industrial society, Modern Times.  In 1930, Hitler tasked Hans Buchner to clarify what Nazi economic policies were.  What did Buchner elect to call the economic policies of the Nazis?  “State socialism.” …

Karl Lowenstein in the 1940 book, Governments of Continental Europe, writes that there was a convergence in Bolshevism and National Socialism regarding private property, and that this was clear long before Hitler and Stalin became allies.  Such things as freedom of contract, inviolability of private property, and the right to dispose of one’s estate were cited as examples of the deep-reaching restrictions in both totalitarian states. National Socialists were socialists.  They had nothing but contempt for what socialists call “capitalism” or what normal people call economic freedom.  While it is convenient to portray Nazis as beholden to industrialists and militarists, even from the earliest days Nazis loathed not only industrialists in general but armament makers in particular.  The Nazis raised taxes, punished profits, reduced the power of owners, of managers, and of directors and championed the right of the state or the party to “protect” Germany and German workers from abuses of “capitalists
Nazis were Marxists, through and through.  Although Nazi condemned Bolshevism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Russia, and although the Nazis often bickered and fought with Fascism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Italy, Hitler and his ghastly accomplices were always and forever absolutely committed to that which we have come to call the “Far Left.”  Nazis were Marxists.
Be seeing you
vene social

Is that Sean Penn?

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »