Saturday, March 09, 2024

"The Cultural War" by Evelyne Joslain Is One of the Outstanding Books of the 21st Century


It's not every day that you open a French book that shows the conflict between right and left to such an extent and to such a depth that its translation into English is a must. But La Guerre Culturelle (The Cultural War) is "the product of more than twenty-five years of reflection and personal archives collected daily", and we can rest assured that it will remain the masterpiece of Évelyne Joslain's œuvre.

Having written outstanding books for the French public on Donald Trump, Barack Obama, the Tea Party, and America's Think Tanks, Evelyne Joslain proves to be an unbeatable woman on the subject of everything concerning the United States, and, as we are going to see before we've even finished the book's first chapter, on a whole spectrum of subjects, from the ancient Greeks to Belgian serial killers.

One is thunderstruck by the knowledge of a woman who, page after page (if not paragraph after paragraph), seems to produce revelation after revelation, whether explaining the influence of Epicurus on Thomas Jefferson, the historical difference between Whigs and Tories (which even the majority of English-speakers barely know), or the contrast between the humanism at the heart of the Renaissance and current environmentalism.

I remember that Gorbachev, during a speech some forty years ago, decided to praise the revolutions of History; however, the leader of the USSR only mentioned the French and Russian revolutions, but not the American one, which raised an (entirely justified) outcry in the U.S. (even among left-wing newspapers — after all, "Gorby" was their darling, which contributed to the fact that the Russian "supertsar", but not his American partner, Ronald Reagan, was alone in being a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize).

We can count on Évelyne Joslain to get to the heart of the problem and find the explanation:

The French Revolution was bloody and genocidal, and turned its back on the Renaissance, making a clean sweep of the past. It is the example to be avoided and yet the one that has been most imitated while the American Revolution, which has everything to inspire, remains without imitation and becomes the object of neo-Marxist hatred. The former, France's bloodthirsty revolution, is therefore a truly 180º revolution, while the second, the American Revolution, is a 360º revolution, in other words it returns to the traditional English norms resulting from the Magna Carta of 1215. It restores the rights of the English in America, violated by George III.

Following Britain's "politico-religious standoff" (with "brutal savagery") and the Glorious Revolution (also, it turns out, ignored by Gorbachev; in fact, here too we are faced with a "semi-revolution … without a drop of bloodshed") in the half-century between the 1640s and the 1690s, the English monarchy realized that it was prudent to refrain from trampling on the rights of Englishmen. However, George III did not understand that the Bill of Rights of 1689 should also be applied to English subjects in the colonies of America (and elsewhere) and treated his subjects there with the absolutism of his ancestors.

Returning to the motto of the French Republic, however, Évelyne Joslain is concise and blunt:

Liberty and Equality are mutually exclusive [while] Fraternity … cannot be decreed

La Guerre Culturelle attempts to go back to the sources of the cultural left and analyze all its aspects, and there is so much to digest that the present article will only consider the book's first chapter (The Ancient Roots of the Culture War).

Indeed, it turns out that the modern conflict between right and left "has existed since the dawn of time" — "their roots in times immemorial and in ancient myths" — and from the first chapter, we are introduced to the likes of Ovid, Socrates, and Cicero.

Never, perhaps, has it been so well illustrated to what extent the writings of Socrates and Aristotle correctly describe the conflict of our day. Never, perhaps, has it been so well illustrated to what extent Diogenes (plus his "cynicism") and Heraclitus (plus his "Hedonism") of Ephesus are the ancestors of today's leftists.

They touted unhealthy and cynical pleasures of the same type [as today] … the pleasure of soiling the sacred … the pleasure of soiling beauty … and the pleasure of soiling childhood

  … this self-destructive pattern is repeated today from Europe to the Pacific, where the decadent elements which constitute the internal enemy work in concert with the external enemies

The radio host of the Libre journal du Nouveau Monde program on Radio Courtoisie (where — full disclosure — I have been a guest a number of times) for many years, Évelyne Joslain continues with a refusal to participate in the usual praise of figures as disparate as Napoleon and Voltaire, regarding both the "hateful atheism" of the latter along with that of his emulators and that of Karl Marx.

Like Paul Johnson, Évelyne Joslain sees the decline of religion as a disaster:

Christianity remains the religion most frequently mocked, ridiculed, and covered with blasphemy because it reaffirms some disturbing principles such as the free will of each person, responsibility, duties, and because it places man at the center of nature. .

At the same time, Évelyne Joslain manages — even though she was hardly asked to do so — to explain in a single sentence the difference between Western and Eastern Christendom and, by extension, the war in Ukraine:

Western Christianity distinguishes between what is God's, like nature, and what is Caesar's, unlike Eastern Christianity, in which the Orthodox Church does not distinguish the regal from the spiritual.

Now we can better understand the praise for Putin's presidency expressed by the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Évelyne Joslain has little more respect and patience for the generic "Philosopher" who is reminiscent of the people described in Paul Johnson's book, Intellectuals (From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky). This generic philosopher, this intellectual, who is “illuminated by contact with Ideas (i.e., with the absolute truth), is therefore ideally suited to impose on the human magma swarming below the rules which ought to govern them.”

Intellectual imposture cannot be right-wing. This has always been the work of the left-leaning mind. In the distant past as today.

A columnist at Les 4 Vérités for a number of years, Évelyne Joslain moves effortlessly from Charlemagne to Descartes via Marc Dutroux, a notorious child murderer (deliberately?) forgotten by everyone these days. (I was surprised to learn, also about thirty years ago, that one of the parents of one of the murdered girls had tried to enter politics, only to have his embryonic career scuttled by the Belgian élites before it even began. Another question mark from my youth to which the remarkable Évelyne Joslain provides the answer)

This first chapter covers 2000 to 3000 years of human history and the author of one of the rare books in French which tells the truth about Barack Obama transports us to the 20th and 21st centuries.

We come to Saul Alinsky and his book, which is the key manual for VIPs such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Rules for Radicals is

[their] bible and Alinsky is [their] mentor; the master of the inversion of everything, values, concepts, vocabulary, excellent at blinding unsuspecting right-wing people.

Again, we can only hope that Americans will hurry to have this work translated...

More details about the book next week…

 

Jixie Juny Meets Conservative Stars at CPAC, Is Only Cat to Attend Trump's Speech Finale

MyPillow's Mike Lindell

As I wrote in my main CPAC post, I got tagged the Catman at @CPAC 2024 and for what I admit is a very good reason: since my 19-year-old cat needs daily medication, the only way that I could provide for Jixie Juny was to bring her over the Atlantic Ocean (the cat handled the 6 to 8 hour flights quite well).

It was funny: for the first three days of #CPAC, security would not let me go by the security line with the cat to attend speeches in the Potomac Ballroom. On the fourth day, when the VIP of all VIPs, Donald Trump, was to hold the finale, the Secret Service did let Jixie Juny through security (although admittedly after 15 minutes of bargaining with one of their number)… 

Incidentally, the 45th president was poised only to speak for thirty minutes, but when he finally arrived, 40 minutes late, he spoke for one and a half hours… (Thanks for the Instalink, fellow cat-lover…)

I have been searching the internet for more photos/videos. If any reader finds any others, I wouldn't mind getting the hyperlinks… 

Related: CPAC — Phoenix Airport Shocker — Vast Number of Illegal Immigrants Being Outfitted for Plane Trip

With a cowboy (Dennis Mayo)



Michael Knowles

Lara Trump

Ben Carson

Mr. Build-the-Wall


Greta Van Susteren

Mark Levin

Megyn Kelly

Head of the UK's Brexit Party

Nigel Farage Shows Off His Union Jack Socks

"Oh, you're the Catman!" Tree of Life 's Amanda Schumacher

Steve Bannon

The President of El Salvador

Nayib Bukele, as he was about to shake my hand

Vivek Ramaswamy before his Ronald Reagan dinner speech

Going to see the finale with Jixie Juny

restless puss

Jix acquires a number of fans

The cat likes to use my hand as a pillow



"What about me, Jixie?!"
The Queen of the King-Size Bed

CPAC: Phoenix Airport Shocker — Vast Number of Illegal Immigrants Being Outfitted for Plane Trip

As she was about to board her plane at Phoenix airport to fly to Washington, D.C. to assist Stave Bannon at CPAC, an Arizona resident saw a line of migrants who were grouped together and were being assisted in their illegal immigration into America. Among other things, they were being issued a document with words in big letters reading, "Help me. I don't speak English." 

After landing in DC, she saw no more evidence of the illegal aliens, who were ushered away in stealth. Apparently, I was told by the top employee at Patriot Pay in the breakfast room of our hotel, a significant number of American citizens were forced to give up their seats to that this considerable number of illegal aliens could get flown to the East Coast. (Update: Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah)

Related: • Jixie and the Catman at CPAC 2024

Jixie Juny Is Only Cat or Household Pet to Attend Trump's Speech Finale


As it happens, Thomas Catenacci reported on Fox News that Money meant to help struggling Americans went to illegal immigrants instead in Dem-led states and cities, meaning that the "Biden admin 'directly subsidized "undocumented" immigration under the guise of COVID-19 pandemic relief'." 

Democrat-run states and cities across the country that have been inundated with illegal immigrants in recent months previously earmarked tens of millions of dollars in COVID-19 financial assistance programs to support "undocumented residents."

According to a Fox News Digital review of state and local programs, Democrat governors and mayors earmarked at least $517 million for the programs, which generally consisted of providing cash payments to individual illegal immigrants. The funding reviewed by Fox News Digital was drawn from the American Rescue Plan (ARP), the $1.9 trillion federal COVID-19 stimulus package President Biden signed into law in March 2021.

"This means the Biden Administration directly subsidized ‘undocumented’ immigration under the guise of COVID-19 pandemic relief," a recent report from the Economic Policy Innovation Center stated, pointing to how federal ARP funds were diverted to illegal immigrants in Washington state. 

 … Economic Policy Innovation Center President and CEO Paul Winfree told Fox News Digital this month that the Biden administration has been "actively encouraging illegal immigration by using COVID money" from the recovery fund.

 … A notice issued as part of the [Illinois] program states that "no questions will be asked in regards to citizenship or immigration status" of applicants.

Meanwhile, both Chicago and Illinois broadly have experienced a massive surge in migrants, straining taxpayer-funded government services designed for citizens.

It is simply incredible the number of Americans willing to go forward with what can only be called a symbol of their deep hatred for their country, America, and for their fellow countrymen.

Friday, March 01, 2024

Blaze Investigator Asked to Self-Surrender to the FBI over his January 6 Reporting


In the wake of his Blaze Media reporting on The Truth About January 6th, such as Proof of Perjury, Steve Baker has now been notified that he is due to be arrested over his January 6 reporting or, to be more specific, that the FBI wants him to self-surrender to the agency in the morning in Dallas. 

Hopefully, friends and allies (VIPs?) will be present to film and record the scenes…

Instapundit's Ed Driscoll has more… (And many thanks to Sarah Hoyt…)

Just for the record, here are three incontrovertible truths about January 6 written over the past three years:

The January 6 Protest Summarized in One Single Sentence

Please stand to attention for a one-single-sentence summary of the January 6 protest, or the January 6 riot, or the January 6 mêlée, or the January 6 controversy, or the January 6 committee — or whatever you choose to call it:

The critical date is not January 6;
the critical date is November 3.
It is not January 6 (2021) — repeated (quite deliberately) ad nauseam by the Democrats and the mainstream media alike (it is no accident that that date is the name of the committee that could just as well have been called, say, the Congress Breach Committee) — that is the significant date; no, the historical date is November 3 (2020).

The Central Absurd Inconsistency of the Ray Epps Conundrum Described in Two Sentences

Well, Leftists, which is it?

EITHER the January 6 protests were so wicked that the fiendish scoundrels who participated — all of them (not least the ringleaders) — should be persecuted to the full extent of the law. 

OR ELSE, insofar as we accept that one of the protesters — and a ringleader, at that — is no more than a "poor schmuck" who should be left alone (as the man most visible in urging the masses to march on the capitol was described by one irate Democrat member of the Jan. 6 Committee), then all (or at least the majority) of the other protesters should be left off the hook, exactly like Ray Epps, no more and no less.

American Thinker: Let's Stop Using the Words "Trump Tried to Overturn the 2020 Election"; It's Unprofessional Journalism 

It is easier for the world to accept
a simple lie than a complex truth

— Alexis de Tocqueville

After almost three years — and as Democrats in Colorado and Maine ban Donald Trump from the Centennial State's ballot — it is beyond time for the media to stop "reporting" that "Trump tried to overturn a presidential election" and to quit referring matter-of-factly: to "the election that Trump lost"; to "Trump's defeat" and his "baseless" "false claims"; and to "Trump is challenging the results" of "Biden's victory (in, say, Georgia)" and to "swing the election in his favor".

 … This is not a neutral, objective, and non-partisan view of of the facts of the 2020 election. Far from it. No. It is the (self-serving) DNC version. It is akin to asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" 

Phrases like “baseless fraud claims”, “sham election investigations”, and “false claims of election fraud” come straight from the Democratic Party. At a minimum, readers and viewers are used to circumspect "allegedlys," to prudent "reportedlys," and to cautious "accused ofs". What happened to them?

Sunday, February 25, 2024

Jixie and the Catman at CPAC 2024


I got tagged the Catman at CPAC 2024 and for what I admit is a very good reason: since my 19-year-old cat needs daily medication, the only way that I could provide for Jixie Juny was to bring her over the Atlantic Ocean (the cat handled the 8 hour 10 minute flight quite well). 

Having her as an "emotional support animal" (or as I have to admit that I cheekily called her — only to designated #CPAC members — an "emotional support pussy") lead to a bevy of photo shoots (Zuma's Dominic Gwinn plus NurPhoto) and interviews at the Gaylord Convention Center, including with Sky News and of the Washington Times

Erik Svane flew nearly 9 hours from Paris with his cat to attend CPAC. Mr. Svane, who is in his mid-50s, has worked on a conservative political blog in France for two decades. He believed that the Supreme Court would intervene on Mr. Trump’s behalf, and not allow “kangaroo courts” to decide who runs for office and who doesn’t. 

“I see that as show trials and can’t believe this is happening in America,” Mr. Svane said. “I’m hoping it’ll wake more people up to what a rotten system we have right now.”

Internationally, a couple ofand Mandel Ngan of La Provence and AFP (reproduced by La Croix, MSN, TV5, and Boursorama, merci à Aléric Flair).

Erik Svane, un Américain qui vit à Paris venu spécialement depuis la capitale pour voir Donald Trump, tranche : "Il faut continuer à aider l’Ukraine mais le problème c’est que Joe Biden et les démocrates n’expliquent jamais rien. Ils disent simplement +il faut envoyer de l’argent+. Alors que si on explique pourquoi, ce serait plus simple."

Sur son épaule trône son chat, baptisé "Jixie Juny", qui fait l’attraction dans les couloirs de la convention. "Un vrai trumpiste", rigole le Parisien d’adoption. "Mais lui, il n’aura pas le droit de voter" le 5 novembre pour élire le prochain président.

Update: I have been searching the internet for more photos/videos. If any reader finds any others, I wouldn't mind getting the hyperlinks… (Thanks for the Instalink, fellow cat-lover…)

Related: • Jixie Juny Is Only Cat or Household Pet to Attend Trump's Speech Finale 

• CPAC: Phoenix Airport Shocker — Vast Number of Illegal Immigrants Being Outfitted for Plane Trip

Monday, February 19, 2024

How Trump's Lawyer Should Have Reacted to Fani Willis's Eruption, "I’m not going to emasculate a black man!"


At one point, right after trying to pull heart strings by stating that Nathan Wade "had a form of cancer" (so "that makes your allegations somewhat ridiculous"), Fani Willis erupted, "I’m not going to emasculate a black man!" 

At another point in the trial, Fani Willis went ballistic again: "These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020!" When Judge Scott McAfee stated that "Your interests are opposed to" those of Trump lawyer Ashleigh Merchant, the Fulton County District Attorney retorted that "Ms. Merchant's interests are contrary to democracy, your Honor, not to mine," Willis responded.

In the second case, one of the Trump lawyers should have interjected, 

"How about Stacy Abrams? Are you going to defend democracy by indicting her for challenging the results of the governor's race?"
More importantly, regarding the first case, the dialogue went as follows:

• Steve Sadow (ironical): "I do appreciate the characterization"
Fani Willis: "I’m not going to emasculate a black man, but I, I'm just telling you that—
• Steve Sadow: "I'm sorry, what?!"
Fani Willis: "I’m not going to emasculate [pause for effect] a black man! Did you understand that?!”

The only thing that Donald Trump's other lawyer should have responded at that point is this: 

"Are we to understand that you are willing (perhaps even eager) to emasculate a white man?" 

Or, rather, a Republican (irrespective of sex and skin color). In fact, it would have been even better had Donald Trump in person been in the Georgia courthouse and interrupted the proceedings with his deadpan sotto voce deliverance, "It's only white men that she likes to emasculate…" 

Oh, if Trump had responded that way, we would have seen the Fulton County District Attorney go totally berserk! (Wouldn't have been worth the rebuke — even an ouster? — that Trump would have gotten for his interruption?)

Thursday, February 08, 2024

The Genocide Charge Against Israel: What Is the Difference Between War and Genocide in the First Place?

In recent decades, as many as three million people perished in a famine in North Korea that was mainly government-induced 

writes in a New York Times column entitled The Genocide Charge Against Israel Is a Moral Obscenity:

Hundreds of thousands of Syrians were gassed, bombed, starved or tortured to death by the Assad regime, and an estimated 14 million were forced to flee their homes. China has put more than a million Uyghurs through gulag-like re-education camps in a thinly veiled attempt to suppress and erase their religious and cultural identity.

But North Korea, Syria and China have never been charged with genocide at the International Court of Justice. Israel has. How curious. And how obscene.

It’s obscene because it politicizes our understanding of genocide, fatally eroding the moral power of the term. The war between Israel and Hamas is terrible — as is every war. But if this is genocide, what word do we have for the killing fields in Cambodia, Stalin’s Holodomor in Ukraine, the Holocaust itself?

Words that come to mean much more than originally intended eventually come to mean almost nothing at all — a victory for future génocidaires who’d like the world to think there’s no moral or legal difference between one kind of killing and another.

It’s obscene because it perverts the definition of genocide, which is precise: “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” 

 … If Israel were trying to commit genocide, it wouldn’t be putting its soldiers at risk or allowing humanitarian relief to arrive from Egypt or withdrawing many of its forces from Gaza. It would simply be killing Palestinians everywhere, in vastly greater numbers, as Germans killed Jews or Hutus killed Tutsis.

It’s obscene because it puts the wrong party in the dock. Hamas is a genocidal organization by conviction and design. Its founding charter calls for Israel to be “obliterated” and for Muslims to kill Jews as they “hide behind stones and trees.” On Oct. 7, Hamas murdered, mutilated, tortured, incinerated, raped or kidnapped everyone it could. Had it not been stopped it would not have stopped. One of its leaders has since vowed to do it “a second, a third, a fourth” time.

It’s Hamas, not Israel, that started the war, keeps it going, and would resume it the moment it has the arsenal and the opportunity.

It’s obscene because it validates Hamas’s illegal and barbaric strategy of hiding between, behind and beneath Palestinian civilians. From the beginning of the war, Hamas has had a double aim: to kill as many Jews as possible, and to incur Palestinian fatalities to gain international sympathy and diplomatic leverage.

 … It’s obscene because it’s historically hypocritical. The United States, Britain and other allied nations killed a staggering number of German and Japanese civilians on the path to defeating the regimes that had started World War II — often known as the Good War. Events such as the bombings of Dresden or Tokyo, to say nothing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were tragic and far more indiscriminate than anything Israel stands accused of doing. But no serious person holds Franklin Roosevelt to be on a moral par with Adolf Hitler. What the Allies did were acts of war in the service of a lasting peace, not genocide in the service of a fanatical aim.

The difference? In war, the killing ends when one side stops fighting. In a genocide, that’s when the killing begins.

Related — To Peacenik Protesters Everywhere (Pro-Palestinian or Other): The People that Hamas Slaughtered Mercilessly at Israel's Rave — They Are YOU! has also penned Abolish the U.N.’s Palestinian Refugee Agency
and, on a more personal note, Why I Can’t Stop Writing About Oct. 7.

Monday, February 05, 2024

Democrats Get Their Political Playbook From Lenin, Communism's First Dictator and Mass Murderer


As Ron Hart points out (spasibo to Tovarich Glenn Reynolds), Democrats Got Their Political Playbook From Lenin:

When you have bad policies and cannot sustain your authority based on quantifiable results, you do what Democrats have done these last few years: you weaponize the government against your enemies.

It is not a novel construct. In 1918 the oppressive Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin (the 100th anniversary of whose death was on Jan. 21) laid out his plan to keep the communists in power with his infamous “Hanging Order.” This was an order he sent to his Bolshevik leaders in his government (his Deep State) …

Number 1. “Hang in full view of the people,” resembles the multiple, frivolous impeachment attempts against Trump by Democrats. You would have to surrender your reason to Woke-DNC dogma not to conclude that the Deep Blue “Deep Staters” are not targeting Trump. A 76-year-old man, never arrested, rings up 90 felonies these past 12 months as he runs against a sitting president. Really? Maybe he’s just a late bloomer?

 … Number 2. “Publish their names.” Clearly the “doxing and swatting” of GOP leaders, from Lois Lerner to the IRS agent who turned over the tax returns of Donald Trump and Elon Musk to The New York Times, fit this category. 

Number 3. “Seize their grain.” It is what NY Attorney General Letitia James is doing to Trump by using some novel legal theory which has neither victim nor crime to take Trump’s properties away from him. 

Number 4. “Designate Hostages — in a fashion people see and tremble.” If this is not the essence of the vast prosecutorial overreaction to Jan. 6, then just arrest me. A few hundred men who looked like the cast of Duck Dynasty on a confusing day walked through our Capitol (“The People’s House”) and monkeyed with Nancy Pelosi’s podium. Now many of them sit in solitary confinement, perhaps for up to 20 years. For trespassing.

goes on to pen Remembering Lenin—the First Great Communist Mass Murderer (spasibo to Comrade Ed Driscoll) in the form of a quiz:

Let's take a little history quiz. Which of the following features of the Soviet state were first introduced under Lenin, and which by Stalin:

1. The Gulag system of slave labor camps

2. The Cheka (secret police agency eventually known as the KGB)

3. Collectivization of agriculture leading to mass famines

4. Mass executions with little or no due process

5. A one-party state, with bans on all opposition parties (including socialist ones)

6. Suppression of freedom of speech and religion

7. Confiscation of private businesses, including even small businesses

8. Invading other nations in order to spread communism there

9. State control of the media for purposes of promoting regime propaganda, and preventing distribution of opposition speech

If you answered Lenin, you were correct in every case! And virtually every one of these measures was also supported by Trotsky, Bukharin, and other Bolshevik leaders whom some Western leftists like to trumpet as potentially superior alternatives to Stalin. Had Trotsky rather than Stalin come to power after Lenin's death, he would have happily continued all of the above, and in some cases doubled down on it.


Tovarich Ed Driscoll goes on to link to his post on Tom Wolfe's Intelligent Co-Ed’s Guide to America from 1976:

The publication of The Gulag Archipelago in 1973, however, was a wholly unexpected blow. No one was ready for the obscene horror and grotesque scale of what Solzhenitsyn called “Our Sewage Disposal System”—in which tens of millions were shipped in boxcars to con­centration camps all over the country, in which tens of millions died, in which entire races and national groups were liquidated, insofar as they had existed in the Soviet Union. Moreover, said Solzhenitsyn, the system had not begun with Stalin but with Lenin, who had im­mediately exterminated non-Bolshevik opponents of the old regime and especially the student factions. It was impossible any longer to distinguish the Communist liquidation apparatus from the Nazi.

Yet Solzhenitsyn went still further. He said that not only Stalinism, not only Leninism, not only Communism — but socialism itself led to the concentration camps; and not only socialism, but Marxism; and not only Marxism but any ideology that sought to reorganize morality on an a priori basis. Sadder still, it was impossible to say that Soviet socialism was not “real socialism.” On the contrary — it was socialism done by experts!

 … Solzhenitsyn’s tour of the United States in 1975 was like an enormous funeral procession that no one wanted to see. … And the literary world in general ignored him completely.


From there, Comrade Instapunditski links to the Daily Mail's Tony Rennell asking “Why does the gullible Left still lionize Lenin as a benign intellectual and the acceptable face of Communism when he ruthlessly murdered his opponents in their thousands, starved two million Russians to death and wrote the playbook for Stalin?” 

There are those who will point to [Lenin’s] successor, Stalin, as the real devil in Russia’s 20th Century history, and there is no doubt that the repression, the violence, show trials, gulags and butchery of that monster’s 30 years as the dictator of the Soviet Union far exceeded Lenin’s – nastier, more brutal, insanely contemptuous of human life, totally beyond rational understanding. In his paranoia, he murdered friend and foe alike. And yet the truth – however much it may offend those who regard Lenin’s as the acceptable face of Communism – is that Stalin was Lenin’s protege and took his lead from him.

Finally, Tovarich Ed Driscoll takes it a step further by linking to James Bartholomew's Why Isn’t Lenin As Condemned As Hitler?

It is a curious phenomenon that Lenin is acceptable and even approved of whereas Hitler is beyond the pale. It is not exactly a secret that Lenin started off seventy years of communist rule in Russia which included two major famines, the Red Terror, the Great Terror and continuing poverty. The death toll of Soviet communism was in the order of twenty million. So how do people manage to think favorably of him?

 … the Bolsheviks lost [the 1917 elections to the constituent assembly]. But Lenin did not care. Rather like Hitler, whose party incidentally got a higher percentage of the vote in Germany than the Bolsheviks did in Russia, he closed the constituent assembly and deployed armed soldiers to prevent anyone reopening it. The lie Lenin fans choose to believe is that if only Lenin had lived, communist rule would have succeeded. Lenin’s replacement by Stalin ruined it all.

But Lenin did all the things that Stalin did. Lenin began government control of agriculture, setting a fixed price that the government would pay for corn and other grains. The price was absurdly low because of the high rate of inflation. A shortage of food ensued. Lenin then requisitioned grain from peasants at gunpoint. These disastrous policies contributed heavily to death by starvation of at least three million people in 1920-21. Lenin implicitly recognized the part his policies had played by reversing them in 1921.

 … Lenin created the Cheka, the Soviet secret police. His on-the-record instructions to kill include this written order following a revolt in Penza province: “Hang (absolutely hang, in full view of the people) no fewer than 100 known kulaks [peasants owning a little land], filthy rich men, bloodsuckers.” Lenin did not engage in class war. He engaged in class murder.

Lenin set up the concentration camps which eventually became the Gulag. He issued a decree in 1918 stating that it was “imperative to safeguard the Soviet Republic from class enemies by isolating them in concentration camps.” Every provincial city was ordered to create one and by the end of 1920 there were 107 of them. Lenin authorized the use of poison gas in 1921 to kill peasants in the Tambov uprising. Vyacheslav Molotov, a senior Soviet politician under both Lenin and Stalin, remarked that both leaders were “hard men… harsh and stern. But without a doubt Lenin was harsher.”

Lenin did not engage in class war. He engaged in class murder

Again and again the records show Lenin urging his colleagues to be more ruthless and to kill. Against all this, the defense is sometimes: “Well it was a time of civil war, so extreme measures were necessary.” But why was there a civil war? Only because Lenin had mounted a coup that was contrary to the expressed views of the Russian people. Supporters of Lenin argue that he did some wonderful things. He issued a decree that women should have equal rights in 1917. But it was the provisional government that had already given women the vote, and it is not as if the Soviet Union was unique in conferring increasing rights to women during the 20th century. It was happening throughout Europe.


Related: Some Mind-Boggling Revelations About Stalin, World War II, and a Century of Russian History
• For the first two years of World War II, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were allies; Hitler and Stalin secretly planned and jointly began the war that inflicted such horror and destruction.

If more is needed about Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, look at this blog's excerpts from Paul Johnson's Modern Times (A History of the World from the 1920s to the 1990s) dealing with the dictator of Germany: 

•  "Hitler remained to the end a socialist"; the Führer "was totally irreligious and" wanted to hang the Pope in St Peter's Square

The post, which has been updated, also has a number of revelations about the dictator of Russia, mainly from chapters 1 and 2 of the Paul Johnson book… Here are three of those excerpts:

 … [When] Lenin had his first stroke … his work was already complete.  He had systematically constructed, in all its essentials, the most carefully engineered apparatus of state tyranny the world had ever seen.  In the old world, personal autocracies, except perhaps for brief periods, had been limited, or at least qualified, by other forces in society:  a church, an aristocracy, an urban bourgeoisie, ancient charters and courts and assemblies.  And there was, too, the notion of an external, restraining force, in the idea of a Deity, or Natural Law, or some absolute system of morality.  Lenin's new despotic utopia had no such counterweights or inhibitions.  Church, aristocracy, bourgeoisie had all been swept away.  Everything that was left was owned or controlled by the state.  All rights whatsoever were vested in the state.  And, within that state, enormous and ever-growing as it was, every single filament of power could be traced back to the hands of a minute group of men — ultimately to one man 

… Lenin hated the essence of democracy, and he regarded its forms merely as a means to legitimize violence and oppression … an unrestricted license for terror

 … Lenin's legacy was a solidly built police state surrounded by economic ruins

Victor Davis Hanson … says that nihilism is the root of modern leftism, writes J. Robert Smith (spasibo to Comrade Ed Driscoll).

Nihilism is a school of thought – often expressed in political and social terms – holding that traditional values are worthless and empty due to the meaninglessness of existence. The sole stance of nihilism is defiance; the sole goal is the destruction of all that stands.

 … Marxism, throughout its history, has been a refuge for the resentful, for those who nurse grudges, for those who project their hurts, failures, and unfairness done them -- real or imagined -- on the societies in which they live and on others: rich men and the bourgeoisie earlier and now Whites, who are accused of inherent racism. And to a slightly lesser degree, Asians resented for their successes, academically and professionally. Jews are back in vogue as hate targets, too. Leftists need villains to justify ruin.

[Like Hitler,] Lenin loathed Christianity. He loathed traditional Russian society. His animus ventured well beyond a reaction to perceived systemic unfairness toward Russia’s peasantry. Unlike Scrooge, but like a good Marxist, Lenin chose not to exploit existing society but to destroy it -- or he began the process; Stalin eagerly continued the project. Destruction was a prerequisite to a new, bright communist society, went the rationale.

In practice, Russian society became a countrywide gulag. Tens of millions died. The human spirit was trampled. Bleakness was unremitting. Lenin, an unwitting existentialist, and his spawn imposed a horrid meaning on their meaningless world: totalitarianism and the cruel iron boot that came with it. In fact, they chose evil.

Monday, January 29, 2024

When the transnational left regurgitates that Trump threatens “democracy,” they are not speaking of true democracy, but of “their own democracy”, i.e., their dictatorship


Germany’s Der Spiegel is a shameful example of European leftism

writes Evelyne Joslain at the American Thinker (thanks for the Instalink, Sarah).

As early as February 2017, after Trump had just been inaugurated, the magazine’s editorial team published an infamous cover showing the Republican brandishing the severed head of the Statue of Liberty, dripping with blood, to make it clear that Trump was going to guillotine the US democracy, no less.

On January 20, 2024, the rag was at it again! Trump has not yet been re-elected, but the narrative of the transnational left is that the head of the MAGA movement is going to be a dictator. On the cover, there’s a photograph of a martial, presidential Trump, who is respectfully saluting the troops (a magnificent Trump, actually). On the lower left, though, is this enormous wart for a title: “DIKTATOR TRUMP! Ein Szenario” (“Dictator Trump! A Scenario”).

 … When the transnational left, running the whole gamut from the extremely wealthy elites with undue powers down to pathetic journalists in search of fame, regurgitates to us ad nauseam that Trump threatens “democracy,” as do all those who dare to have a skeptical opinion of the imposed narrative, we must understand that they are not speaking of true democracy, where the most diverse opinions can be expressed, but of “their own democracy.” That is to say, they fear the very opposite; namely, preserving their own interests through dictatorship. It’s just that they lack the courage to name the goals for what they are while having the nerve to accuse their opponents of their sins.
Related — Also at The American Thinker: Let's Stop Using the Words "Trump Tried to Overturn the 2020 Election"; It's Unprofessional Journalism