Neo-Communism Out of the Closet… ~ “I consider the reception of this latest Stone travesty to be a significant cultural event signifying a final coming out of the closet of what can only be termed the Communist left.”
Neo-Communism Out of the Closet
by David Horowitz
Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States is a ludicrous encapsulation of the Kremlin’s view of the Cold War, amplified by the Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Hamas version of the post-Communist decades. Indeed, America is portrayed by the Stone-Kuznick author-team as such an evil force in the events of the last 75 years, they evoke overt sympathy for the Germans and the Japanese during World War II, as well as for Stalin himself, and then for really any self-declared enemy of the United States, not excluding Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I consider the reception of this latest Stone travesty to be a significant cultural event signifying a final coming out of the closet of what can only be termed the Communist left. It is the well-known views of the Communist left that undeniably constitute the Stone-Kuznick version of the events of the last seventy years, and their portrait of the United States. The fact that Henry Wallace, the hero of their malevolent work, was a Communist and Soviet pawn, is a perfect summary of the pathetic Stalinism that is the heart and soul of the world-view of Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States.
Some years ago I made a case for characterizing the progressive, liberal left, including the organizations that form the heart of the Democratic Party — the government unions, the Soros Shadow Party, the Center for American Progress, and the Netroots activists – as “neo-Communists.” I made the argument for calling them neo-Communists on the basis of the fact that there was no discernible difference between the view these political actors took of American capitalism – corporations are evil, capitalism is bad, America is the great imperialist Satan – and the view taken by the Communists of the Stalin era.
Of course, time changes everyone somewhat. Even Communists like Khrushchev, who spearheaded Stalin’s purges, came to find it politically wise one day to be anti-Stalinists. So with the progressives. They may decry Communists who have been dead for fifty years but they are busily burnishing the Communists’ ideas and preserving their legacies and passing them on in the curricula of our schools and now on cable TV.
In light of these fairly obvious (if widely unspoken) facts, “neo-Communist” seemed to me an apt term to describe progressives and their liberal fellow-travelers. It seemed just as apt a term as, say, “neo-fascist” and more apt a term than “neo-conservative” (since even Norman Podhoretz says that neo-conservatism is no longer distinguishable from conservatism – although for Paul Gottfried and others that is undoubtedly a controversial statement).
What is striking about the Stone-Kuznick myth-making adventure, and the reason I am making these points once again, is its reception. The Untold History has been widely embraced by the leftwing academic establishment, by the Huffington Post pundits, by the Dissent historian, Michael Kazin, by The Nation and by the progressive culture generally (although not, be it said, the New York Times). Even more impressive has been the silence of the liberal lambs. This is in striking contrast to their reaction to the appearance of Stone’s equally awful JFK. When that piece of rot appeared twenty years ago, there were thunderous and near hysterical denunciations of its lies from leading Democratic Party figures. No such dissents have greeted Stone’s Stalinist revival, no outcries over the libels committed on the memories of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, not to mention America.
I read this as concrete evidence that neo-Communism is alive and well and is now the heart of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party, at least its activist center. I would include in this category the president, his likely new Secretary of State, and his chief political advisors.
[After writing the above I sent it to a conservative academic listserv with the following query: I am interested in the list’s thoughts on this. I would ask one favor, however. Please don’t bring up the fact that few people are still talking about the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or “taking over the means of production” in those words, or identifying themselves as card carrying Communists. First, the left has a history of studied and disciplined mendacity in pursuit of its goals. Second, its goals shift with its accretions of power. Finally, it has been to school with Saul Alinsky (about whom I have written quite a bit) and has absorbed his two main lessons: lie about your agendas; and remember that the end – the destruction of American capitalism – justifies any means.
[There were no responses to my query. I then sent the list this observation: When I posted the question of whether the term "neo-Communist" is not appropriate to describe the current generation of "progressives" I suspected there would be no takers no matter how persuasive the case I made for such an appellation. And that suspicion has been confirmed. What I conclude from this is that the left -- the neo-Communist left if you will -- has been so successful in its ongoing campaign of political intimidation of any critics of its loyalties, allegiances and endorsement of views that are totalitarian in origin and result -- few are willing to risk even speculative thoughts on this matter. I think this is one of the most significant political problems that confronts anyone who wishes to raise his or her voice against this march to serfdom.]
Journalists react in shock to Drudge Report header featuring Hitler and Stalin… (“The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent begged his followers not to talk about or visit the Drudge Report.”)
Shocked journalists this afternoon were quick to react to the Drudge Report’s controversial header photo comparing President Obama to Hitler and Stalin. The item linked to a Weekly Standard article reporting that President Obama was willing to address the gun issue with an executive order.
“Drudge rules our world,” responded Slate journalist David Weigel to Smith’s post on Twitter, later adding sarcastically, “SOMETHING SHOCKING HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE INTERNET.”
“Our right is nuttier than your right (US to 193 countries),” wrote the Al-Monitor’s Laura Rozen.
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent begged his followers not to talk about or visit the Drudge Report.
“Dear everyone: Talking about how Drudge’s visuals are ruse to get attention = giving Drudge attention,” he wrote.
“Also, don’t link to Drudge – link to twitpic,” the Washington Post’s James Downie added.
A Catholic bishop in Illinois has come under intense attack for his comparison of President Obama’s healthcare policies with actions taken by Hitler in Germany. Bishop Daniel Jenky told attendees during a mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Peoria April 14 that the Obama administration is modeling historically repressive regimes that “tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches.”
The Associated Press quoted Bishop Jenky as saying that “Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and health care. In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama — with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda — now seems intent on following a similar path.”
The comments sparked a firestorm of protest from liberal individuals and groups. Lonnie Nasatir of the Chicago branch of the Anti-Defamation League demanded that Jenky apologize, calling his remarks “outrageous, offensive and completely over the top.” Nasatir insisted that the bishop’s comments had trivialized the deaths of millions of Jews, adding that there were few if any historic parallels to “the religious intolerance and anti-Semitism fostered in society by Stalin, and especially Hitler.”
The Chicago Tribune reported that the atheist group Americans United for Separation of Church and State had filed a complaint against Jenky with the IRS, in an attempt to wreak havoc with the diocese’s tax-exempt status. According to the Tribune, the secular group’s president, Barry Lynn, had accused the bishop of effectively urging Catholics to vote against Obama in the upcoming election, thereby violating federal law by inserting the church into a political campaign.
Prison Planet.com » No More Rule By Slogans And Brands: Public Confidence In The PR State In D.C. Is Collapsing
The Obama brand is collapsing and nothing can save it. This was inevitable because the Obama brand is all surface and no substance. Barack Obama is a pseudo president of a propaganda state that has committed atrocities against innocent people in America and around the world. Obama’s name, image, authority, and charisma were all artificially created by the mind controllers in the mass media.
As the legendary journalist John Pilger said in April 2009, “No one knew what the new brand actually stood for.” Since it stands for nothing, the Obama brand is falling into oblivion. Obama, who was sold as the defender of the rule of law and the rights of the American people, is now being exposed to be a liar and a fraud.
Obama is a fig leaf, and the hijacked U.S. government is a hollowed out rotten tree that is barely standing. It has had no real power since it abandoned the American people and the U.S. Constitution on November 22, 1963, when America’s last real president was assassinated. Such a weak structure cannot survive the storms of change. It is bound for failure and catastrophe just like the Soviet system and Nazi Germany.
In some ways, the cult of Obama is similar to the cults of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Khomeini, and other totalitarian cult personalities of the 20th century. Jan Plamper wrote a book about the power of a cult of personality called, “The Stalin Cult: A Study in the Alchemy of Power.” In an interview with the journal Rorotoko in February 2012, Plamper shared the following story about what the image of Stalin meant for Soviet society and for Stalin the man:
There is a great World War Two documentary, that was made in 2005, that shows the diplomatic disputes between Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, as they planned their military campaigns against Hitler.
The 4 part documentary is titled: Warlords. The DVD version was released in 2007, and it shows Winston Churchill as the true defender of freedom, democracy, Christianity, and Western Civilization – against three socialist dictators – Stalin, Hitler, and Roosevelt. Here is a an Amazon link to the documentary: http://www.amazon.com/Warlords-Churchill/dp/B000NVKZUG
Churchill noticed the obvious – that Stalinist Russia was more oppressive than Nazism. While Nazism was brutal in its persecution of Jews, Stalinism was brutal in its perseuction of both Jews and Christians. No regime in human history, with the exception of Islamist regimes, destroyed more Churches and Synagogues than Stalinist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe. People often forget that Stalin killed more Jews than anyone in the 20th Century, with the exception of Hitler. Stalin killed more Jews than the Islamists did, in the 20th Century.
The documentary reveals that Churchill was opposed to the D-day invasion of France. Instead, Churchill supported the invasion of Nazi-held Eastern Europe through Italy in 1941, while Germany and Russia were still fighting on Russian territory.
If Eastern Europe (including Poland) had been liberated from the Nazis by America and Britain, while Stalin was still fighting Hitler on Russian territory, the history of the world would have turned out differently. Most of the Nazi death camp victims were murdered after 1943. Churchill proposed the invasion of Nazi-held Eastern Europe as early as 1941. This means that the millions who were killed in Nazi death camps after 1943, would have lived, and Eastern European nations would have emerged as democratic nations in 1945.
It was more urgent to liberate Eastern Europe from Nazism, than Western Europe, because that would have kept Eastern Europe out of Stalin’s hands. Many of the German Generals opposed Hitler, given their attempt to assassinate him in 1944, and it would have been possible for the West to do a deal with them in removing Hitler from power and securing a withdrawal from Western Europe.
But Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, rather than with Churchill, in designing a plan to defeat Hitler. Roosevelt considered Stalin to be a more valuable ally than Churchill, and was personally fond of the mass murderer, and referred to him affectionately as “Uncle Joe“.
‘My Father Was a Communist’
‘My Father Was a Communist’:
‘My Father Was a Communist’
Pajamas Media ^ | September 24, 2011 | Ed Driscoll
Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:30:33 PM by decimon
The walls were covered with flags, photographs, posters, slogans and emblems. His SA uniforms hung neatly ironed on a hanger…When I said that it must be rather claustrophobic with all that stuff on the walls, he laughed and sat down on the bed, and said: “Mensch! You should have seen it last year! You would have laughed!
Then it was all red flags, stars, hammers, sickles, pictures of Lenin and Stalin and Workers of the World Unite!…Then, suddenly when Hitler came to power, I understood it was all nonsense and lies. I realized Adolf was the man for me. All of a sudden!” He snapped his fingers in the air. “And here I am!”…Had a lot of people done the same, then? “Millions! I tell you, I was astonished how easily they all changed sides!”
(Excerpt) Read more