Communism In The World Essay Example For Students

Communism In The World Essay Both communism and liberalism maintain with complete certainty that the destruction of the existing society will give birth to a new form of human existence at the least approaching utopia. They are what Daniel Chirot dubbed tyrannies of certitude. A particular group of people has been responsible for blocking the happy development for centuries. In the case of communism it was capitalists, in the case of liberalism it is racists nearly all of whom are of course white. No! One must be harsh to build the new society and not make excuses. All white people are racists and must pay the inevitable penalty. Few people know that the word racism was invented by Leon Trotsky, one of the principal architects of the communist nightmare. The rightness of the cause dictates that a political architecture of lies rather than reasoned argument is permissible if necessary to bring about the result. Since no one will willingly give up their human identity, and that is what we are being asked to do, lies will, in fact, be indispensable. The communists aimed at eradicating bourgeois consciousness. The liberals are systematically eradicating our history and identity from schools to ensure pliancy before the onslaught of anti-white bias in everythi ng from newspapers to employment law. In this they are unlikely to succeed. The Russian and Yugoslav experience under communism has shown the persistency of racial and cultural identity. Doubters concerning the wisdom of the new arrangements are to be hunted down and destroyed under communism they were dubbed capitalist spies and saboteurs, under liberalism it is racists a sound catch-all term of abuse for any white person opposing their own marginalisation. The racists are well-organised and to blame for nearly everything which goes wrong according to authority, just like the counter-revolutionaries, western spies and saboteurs in the heyday of communism. Under communism the newspapers would say capitalist spy ring raided. Under liberalism we read police target racist groups. In both cases good citizens are to congratulate themselves on the skill and wisdom of the authorities in protecting them from disruptions to the relentless march towards paradise on earth so evident on Sovie t collective farms and now in Britains inner-cities. If communism was not delivering the goods then even more stringent action was needed to eradicate the source of the trouble. Since it had been scientifically proven that communism would deliver, what possible other cause could there be for failure except disruption by malcontents? If people do not actually enjoy mass immigration and the so-called multiracial society, it must surely be the work of similar malcontents. Liberal theory is flawless. Like communism, it presents itself as scientifically-based an abundancy of pseudo-sociological tosh underpins its thinking and dictates a historically-inevitable outcome in which we all celebrate the fact that we have as little in common with the people we live with as possible. Supposed historical inevitability as a weapon of political language has been filched from communism and creeps into every liberal initiative. It is used, for example, to forward the European federal superstate pro ject. Both liberals and communists maintain that their systems can never be wrong. It is rather like the jesuitical argument that no innocent person has ever been hanged. Since all those hanged have been convicted by a court, they are by legal definition guilty! It is this feature the refusal to admit to possible error in the theory which makes liberalism as totalitarian in nature as communism and why it must be unmasked as the monster it really is. The rulers, too, can never be wrong since they are applying a system which can never err. They are relieved of all responsibility. Notice how no one in government within Britain today takes responsibility for anything! Blair has brought the tactic to a fine art. How is it that white people could been so hoodwinked as many are in our country? A system which targets us for destruction is met with passivity and acquiescence. We can learn a lot from the experience of communism. Most people assume that government is broadly competent. The l atest theory must have some sense in it, people say, or it would not be introduced. New theories which claim to be idealistic enjoy an aura and are given a chance. That is what happened under communism. Sufficient people enthusiastically supported the experiment to carry along the rest with plentiful dollops of intimidation against anyone who became too vocal in opposition. Most people, once they have passively accepted an ideas system, dislike it being challenged, since it implies criticism of their judgement. Those who draw attention to flaws provoke psychological discomfort. Anger and perplexity is a common response. None of us likes to seem made to appear foolish, and especially when merely to hear the message is thought to put us at risk. Later on no one wishes to admit that they were ever a believer. Under communism, only the tiniest fraction of people expressed open dissent against the system. The system tried to draw in as many people as possible as accomplices. One of the most effective means was the threat that a failure to actively denounce opponents of the ideology would mean classification as a supporter. We see this mechanism particularly clearly in a Britain where a political, police, teaching or media career means a requirement to offer regular ritual tributes to the contribution made by immigrants, and little reference to white people beyond regret at occasional backsliding from the requirement that they voluntarily marginalise themselves within the society. The most obnoxious exponents are the army of white media apparatchiks who draw a regular thirty pieces of silver in reward for stabbing their fellow white people in the backs. The most pathetic are senior police officers with their vomit-making confessions of institutional racism before tribunals like that of Sir William Macpherson. They resemble the unfortunates who were tortured by the Inquisition to obtain admissions about the poisoning of wells with powdered toads. Most of the populat ions of the formerly communist countries now congratulate themselves on having been opponents of communism. In reality, most would have crossed the road to avoid a dissident if they had met one at the time. As a communist secret policeman told one dissenter: You are an intelligent man. Why oppose the system when it only brings you trouble to do so. Yet the system eventually collapsed. A small number of open doubters is no measure of the worth of a political system, or of its prospects for permanence. Lenins definition of a revolutionary situation was that the rulers could no longer rule in the same way, and the ruled no longer accepted the old ways. What finished communism was precisely what brought it about, but it took a long time before the bankruptcy of the system led to such a parting of the ways between rulers and ruled. Communism could not provide even the material things. Liberalism does better in material terms but cannot provide meaning to life and human identity. Sooner o r later, the increasingly open repression of white people will lead to its fall. Liberal actions are constantly justified by the claim to be preventing inequality, but end up as a series of attacks on white people. Sooner or later, white people will use up the last of their goodwill and the national genie will leave the bottle. As under communism, even the leaders will no longer be able to believe their own lies. One wonders what goes through the minds of leading members of the Labour Party, including Blair himself, who preach the virtues of the multiracial multicultural comprehensive school, while making sure that their own children do not attend them. The germ of doubt must eventually penetrate even their professionally duplicitous minds. Duplicity about schools is a liberal counterpart of the racket which operated under communism where special shops provided Communist Party members with luxuries unavailable to the mass of the population. The methods by which the main political pa rties maintain power in Britain largely psychological warfare involving ludicrous claims that white people are a guilty race, but also some some violence, and occasional show trials like that of Nick Griffin will eventually no longer work. Any relaxation of control to placate the populace in those circumstances would lead to demands for more freedom and would soon be reversed, as happened under communism at the end of the Prague Spring of 1968. Socialism with a human face would soon be no socialism at all. Liberalism with racial and cultural identity would be a contradiction. No such experiments are being tried at present in Britain. The psywar against white people continues unrelentingly 24 hours a day. Like communism, liberalism has nothing new to try in a situation of public discontent but only more of the same, which will provoke further resentment. That is its fatal internal contradiction. Reinforcement of unsatisfactory policies is the answer when the regime finds itself in difficulty. Political correctness following the Steven Lawrence enquiry has led to a massive increase in violent street crime in London as the police retreat from enforcing the law. The Governments answer is to increase the levels of political correctness within the police just as the communists tried to deal with unrest by reinforcing repression. The case of crime is a particularly telling example. The difficulty for liberal ideologues is that political correctness was supposed to remove resentments which were the principal cause of crime supposedly an expression of revolt against oppression, sexism, racism and so on. What if the theory fails and measures to remove its supposed causes make it worse? The theory cannot be seen to be wrong, so the very measures which have failed must be reinforced on the basis that they have not been introduced vigorously enough! This causes more problems and resentments. Minority racial groups retreat from the multiracial project to protect themselv es. The rulers are forced by their own logic to dig their own metaphorical graves. People will eventually stop listening, no longer believe in the regimes ability to deal with their problems, its moral legitimacy or its basic assumptions, and Lenins precondition for change will appear. The speed with which such watersheds can sometimes erupt was the lesson of 1989. We should not assume that change will necessarily occur in such a dramatic form in liberal Britain. What is more likely, given the temperament of the British people, is a gradual erosion of credibility attached to the regime. As with communism, a quiet subversion will undermine it, even if open revolt is impossible. Chipping away quietly, we will, sooner or later, bring down the evil which intends a slow genocide of our people. The madmen who have taken over our country will be seen as they really are. It is promising an â€Å"ideal world† that cannot be realized for the simple fact, that an ideal world is unrealiz able. In the contrary to the Christianism it is promising this ideal world here on the Earth, during our earthly life. The real aim of Communism is to exploit masses of ordinary people and keep them humbly submitted and obedient through fear and blackmail, in order to provide an easy and luxurious life for a narrow class of the nomenklatura (people holding high positions in the governing regime and their families). Unfortunately, when you realize what is the real face of this regime, it is usually too late. The most serious damage that caused 40 years of Communism to my country is the deformation of people’s way of thinking, of their spirit. It will take at least one generation to repair this. But in spite of it, I am convinced that Communism has lost in my country for all times and will disappear in the same trash-bin of the history as Nazism did. Freedom has a very sweet taste and once you taste it, you never want to go back. Today, young people in my country perceive Commu nism as something assimilated to a dinosaur or any other prehistoric subject, and I do not believe that they would ever succumb to its evil charm, simply because they are no more insulated from the outside world, as the generation of my parents and mine were, they travel around the world, surf on the Web, send messages to friends with their funny cellular phones and break driving mirrors of parked cars and the windows of MacDonald’s during their Global Street Parties, exactly the same way as kids in the rest of the free world do it. They have to face insecurity, unemployment, drugs and all those things that make part of life today. This is the price that has to be paid for the democracy, and that is right because every good thing must be earned. Many people of my generation feel having been â€Å"sacrificed† in the name of the transition to a market oriented society. They do not realize that in fact the destiny offered them a very rare and precious gift: After years of submission and fear, they’ve got an opportunity to discover what is it to be free and responsible for one-self. The trouble is that the life under a Communist regime did not prepare them for it, and they feel lost. I visited many post-Communist countries and I can confirm that this is a common problem in all of them. We need the West to be patient with us and to help us not only financially, but also morally. And my personal belief is, that the best way to improve this sad situation is to offer opportunities to study and to gain a working experience abroad to our young people because practice is always the best teacher. Speaking about a moral support, I mean the fact that the â€Å"citizen-society† is still very undeveloped in my country. We lack of experiences in this field as almost all citizen movements were forbidden under the Communist regime. And many people are still afraid to get publicly involved and feel helpless against the authorities because they havenâ €™t realized yet, that times changed. How I Exhibit the Four Pillars of the National Honor Society Essay Comparative advantage Both communism and liberalism maintain with complete certainty that the destruction of the existing society will give birth to a new form of human existence at the least approaching utopia. They are what Daniel Chirot dubbed tyrannies of certitude. A particular group of people has been responsible for blocking the happy development for centuries. In the case of communism it was capitalists, in the case of liberalism it is racists nearly all of whom are of course white. No! One must be harsh to build the new society and not make excuses. All white people are racists and must pay the inevitable penalty. Few people know that the word racism was invented by Leon Trotsky, one of the principal architects of the communist nightmare. The rightness of the cause dictates that a political architecture of lies rather than reasoned argument is permissible if necessary to bring about the result. Since no one will willingly give up their human identity, and that is what we are being asked to do, lies will, in fact, be indispensable. The communists aimed at eradicating bourgeois consciousness. The liberals are systematically eradicating our history and identity from schools to ensure pliancy before the onslaught of anti-white bias in everythi ng from newspapers to employment law. In this they are unlikely to succeed. The Russian and Yugoslav experience under communism has shown the persistency of racial and cultural identity. Doubters concerning the wisdom of the new arrangements are to be hunted down and destroyed under communism they were dubbed capitalist spies and saboteurs, under liberalism it is racists a sound catch-all term of abuse for any white person opposing their own marginalisation. The racists are well-organised and to blame for nearly everything which goes wrong according to authority, just like the counter-revolutionaries, western spies and saboteurs in the heyday of communism. Under communism the newspapers would say capitalist spy ring raided. Under liberalism we read police target racist groups. In both cases good citizens are to congratulate themselves on the skill and wisdom of the authorities in protecting them from disruptions to the relentless march towards paradise on earth so evident on Sovie t collective farms and now in Britains inner-cities. If communism was not delivering the goods then even more stringent action was needed to eradicate the source of the trouble. Since it had been scientifically proven that communism would deliver, what possible other cause could there be for failure except disruption by malcontents? If people do not actually enjoy mass immigration and the so-called multiracial society, it must surely be the work of similar malcontents. Liberal theory is flawless. Like communism, it presents itself as scientifically-based an abundancy of pseudo-sociological tosh underpins its thinking and dictates a historically-inevitable outcome in which we all celebrate the fact that we have as little in common with the people we live with as possible. Supposed historical inevitability as a weapon of political language has been filched from communism and creeps into every liberal initiative. It is used, for example, to forward the European federal superstate pro ject. Both liberals and communists maintain that their systems can never be wrong. It is rather like the jesuitical argument that no innocent person has ever been hanged. Since all those hanged have been convicted by a court, they are by legal definition guilty! It is this feature the refusal to admit to possible error in the theory which makes liberalism as totalitarian in nature as communism and why it must be unmasked as the monster it really is. The rulers, too, can never be wrong since they are applying a system which can never err. They are relieved of all responsibility. Notice how no one in government within Britain today takes responsibility for anything! Blair has brought the tactic to a fine art. How is it that white people could been so hoodwinked as many are in our country? A system which targets us for destruction is met with passivity and acquiescence. We can learn a lot from the experience of communism. Most people assume that government is broadly competent. The l atest theory must have some sense in it, people say, or it would not be introduced. New theories which claim to be idealistic enjoy an aura and are given a chance. That is what happened under communism. Sufficient people enthusiastically supported the experiment to carry along the rest with plentiful dollops of intimidation against anyone who became too vocal in opposition. Most people, once they have passively accepted an ideas system, dislike it being challenged, since it implies criticism of their judgement. Those who draw attention to flaws provoke psychological discomfort. Anger and perplexity is a common response. None of us likes to seem made to appear foolish, and especially when merely to hear the message is thought to put us at risk. Later on no one wishes to admit that they were ever a believer. Under communism, only the tiniest fraction of people expressed open dissent against the system. The system tried to draw in as many people as possible as accomplices. One of the most effective means was the threat that a failure to actively denounce opponents of the ideology would mean classification as a supporter. We see this mechanism particularly clearly in a Britain where a political, police, teaching or media career means a requirement to offer regular ritual tributes to the contribution made by immigrants, and little reference to white people beyond regret at occasional backsliding from the requirement that they voluntarily marginalise themselves within the society. The most obnoxious exponents are the army of white media apparatchiks who draw a regular thirty pieces of silver in reward for stabbing their fellow white people in the backs. The most pathetic are senior police officers with their vomit-making confessions of institutional racism before tribunals like that of Sir William Macpherson. They resemble the unfortunates who were tortured by the Inquisition to obtain admissions about the poisoning of wells with powdered toads. Most of the populat ions of the formerly communist countries now congratulate themselves on having been opponents of communism. In reality, most would have crossed the road to avoid a dissident if they had met one at the time. As a communist secret policeman told one dissenter: You are an intelligent man. Why oppose the system when it only brings you trouble to do so. Yet the system eventually collapsed. A small number of open doubters is no measure of the worth of a political system, or of its prospects for permanence. Lenins definition of a revolutionary situation was that the rulers could no longer rule in the same way, and the ruled no longer accepted the old ways. What finished communism was precisely what brought it about, but it took a long time before the bankruptcy of the system led to such a parting of the ways between rulers and ruled. Communism could not provide even the material things. Liberalism does better in material terms but cannot provide meaning to life and human identity. Sooner o r later, the increasingly open repression of white people will lead to its fall. Liberal actions are constantly justified by the claim to be preventing inequality, but end up as a series of attacks on white people. Sooner or later, white people will use up the last of their goodwill and the national genie will leave the bottle. As under communism, even the leaders will no longer be able to believe their own lies. One wonders what goes through the minds of leading members of the Labour Party, including Blair himself, who preach the virtues of the multiracial multicultural comprehensive school, while making sure that their own children do not attend them. The germ of doubt must eventually penetrate even their professionally duplicitous minds. Duplicity about schools is a liberal counterpart of the racket which operated under communism where special shops provided Communist Party members with luxuries unavailable to the mass of the population. The methods by which the main political pa rties maintain power in Britain largely psychological warfare involving ludicrous claims that white people are a guilty race, but also some some violence, and occasional show trials like that of Nick Griffin will eventually no longer work. Any relaxation of control to placate the populace in those circumstances would lead to demands for more freedom and would soon be reversed, as happened under communism at the end of the Prague Spring of 1968. Socialism with a human face would soon be no socialism at all. Liberalism with racial and cultural identity would be a contradiction. No such experiments are being tried at present in Britain. The psywar against white people continues unrelentingly 24 hours a day. Like communism, liberalism has nothing new to try in a situation of public discontent but only more of the same, which will provoke further resentment. That is its fatal internal contradiction. Reinforcement of unsatisfactory policies is the answer when the regime finds itself in difficulty. Political correctness following the Steven Lawrence enquiry has led to a massive increase in violent street crime in London as the police retreat from enforcing the law. The Governments answer is to increase the levels of political correctness within the police just as the communists tried to deal with unrest by reinforcing repression. The case of crime is a particularly telling example. The difficulty for liberal ideologues is that political correctness was supposed to remove resentments which were the principal cause of crime supposedly an expression of revolt against oppression, sexism, racism and so on. What if the theory fails and measures to remove its supposed causes make it worse? The theory cannot be seen to be wrong, so the very measures which have failed must be reinforced on the basis that they have not been introduced vigorously enough! This causes more problems and resentments. Minority racial groups retreat from the multiracial project to protect themselv es. The rulers are forced by their own logic to dig their own metaphorical graves. People will eventually stop listening, no longer believe in the regimes ability to deal with their problems, its moral legitimacy or its basic assumptions, and Lenins precondition for change will appear. The speed with which such watersheds can sometimes erupt was the lesson of 1989. We should not assume that change will necessarily occur in such a dramatic form in liberal Britain. What is more likely, given the temperament of the British people, is a gradual erosion of credibility attached to the regime. As with communism, a quiet subversion will undermine it, even if open revolt is impossible. Chipping away quietly, we will, sooner or later, bring down the evil which intends a slow genocide of our people. The madmen who have taken over our country will be seen as they really are. Government