“If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that.”

July 20th, 2012

In a speech on July 13, 2012 (Friday the Thirteenth no less!), President Obama was heard saying the following (I’m including enough context to avoid any criticism that I’m taking it out of context):

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.” [Emphasis added]

I heard U.S. Senate hopeful Ted Cruz comment on this yesterday. He aptly said that a political gaffe is when a Democrat says what he really thinks. Not since his 2008 “spread the wealth around” comment to Joe the Plumber has Barack Obama been so up front about his political ideology.

This is the essence of the Left-Right divide. On the Left, there’s the notion that the collective is the ultimate source of success. It can best be summed up by the title of the book by Hillary Clinton: It takes a village. On the Right, the notion is that although success is not achieved in a vacuum, ultimately it’s the individual’s drive, determination, innovation and perseverence that are the determining factors. The Left wants equality of outcomes; the Right wants equality of opportunity.

I think this was best expressed by Paul Ryan, when he recently said “Government helps create the space for innovation and prosperity, but government does not fill that space – and it should not try to, as the last few years have shown us. Only free citizens create things that improve our lives.” The Internet is a perfect example of this. Government research did indeed create the Internet (as President Obama points out), but without the innovation of Tim Berners-Lee (who came up with the idea of the World Wide Web), the Internet would continue to function as a very limited network within the scientific community.

If the determining factor were the fact that “someone along the line gave you some help” (as President Obama says) how can you explain the difference between my two brothers-in-law? My older brother-in-law has been a successful accountant and investor for most of his adult life. Although he’s been laid off several times in his career and has had investment setbacks, he always finds his way back on target before too long.

Compare this to his younger brother (who grew up in the same environment with the same opportunities). This brother-in-law has had run-ins with the law his entire life and has been basically unemployed for the last two decades. Fortunately, he’s finally getting his act together, but it’s taken him until well into his fifties to do so.

Ultimately, the difference is all about choices, initiative, hard work, perseverence and exploiting the opportunities afforded to you. When the government attempts to ignore these individual differences and level the playing field irrespective of individual effort, Atlas will shrug – which is at least in part why our economy has been stagnating for the last half decade or so. Why exert all that energy only to feather the nest of someone who hasn’t?

NOTE: I’ve expressed some of these ideas elsewhere on the Internet (with a few variations here and there). If you can find them, you’ll be able to discover the true identity of Curious Texan (my nom de plume in cyberspace).

Steve Jobs 1955-2011

October 6th, 2011

In his 2005 commencement address at Stanford University, Steve Jobs said the following:

“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

As I approach my sixty-second birthday (six more than Steve Jobs ever celebrated in his all too short life), it makes me stop and think how little time I have left to make a difference.

This morning on the Today Show, they showed the famous 1984 commercial for the Macintosh. I couldn’t help but think about the juxtaposition of the death of Steve Jobs, a true original in every sense of the word, and the Occupy Wall Street crowd: the Individual vs. the Collective.

Twenty-seven years from now, Steve Jobs will still be remembered – not for following someone else’s dogma, but for marching to the beat of his own drum. We can’t all be geniuses, but we can each be the unique person we were created to be.

Someone once said, “If you want to leave footprints in the sands of time, wear work boots.” Steve Jobs did just that, and the world is a better place for it.

Can Political Correctness be Worse than Leninism?

March 25th, 2011

Vladimir Bukovsky (born. 1942) is one of the initiators of the dissident movement in the USSR, a neurophysiologist, and a writer. Since adolescence he was involved in anti-Soviet activities, and, as a result, expelled from school and university. In 1963 Bukovsky was arrested, judged to be mentally incapable and kept in a psychiatrist clinic by force. During this forced “treatment” he and his friend-in-misfortune Semion Glazman published “A Manual of Psychiatry for the Dissenters” – a tool for those whom communists tried to proclaim or make mentally incapable.

When Vladimir Bukovsky became widely known in the Soviets and in the West, the Soviet power decided to expel him. In 1976, this “hooligan”, of whom the Soviet authorities had more than enough, was traded for probably the best known political prisoner in the Western world – the Chilean communist leader Luis Corvalan. Mr Bukovsky settled in Great Britain, graduated from Cambridge University, and continued fighting communism. He was amongst the organizers of the boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games in 1980.

In 1978 he published his autobiography “To Build a Castle. My life as a Dissenter”, which later was translated into many languages. After the collapse of the USSR Mr Bukovsky visited Russia. At the invitation of the new authorities, he participated in the so called “USSR case” (July- October 1992) and acted as an official court expert of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. When preparing for the process he had an opportunity to get acquainted with many top secret documents from the CK USSR, including KGB documents from the so called Russian Presidential Archive (later this archive was thoroughly cleansed by “specialists”). On the basis of those documents he compiled one of the most interesting archives to this day (http://bukovsky-archives.net), and wrote his book “The Moscow Process” Московский процесс (1995) on that very communism trial which never took place.

Vladimir Bukovsky: Oslo Freedom Forum [01/03][02/03][03/03]: How and why the type of political oppression that landed Bukovsky in jail in the Soviet Union is still alive and well in countries across the world.
Although he does not live in Russia, Bukovsky remains one of the leaders of the Russian Democratic Movement. In December 2007 he was nominated as candidate for the Presidential election in the Russian Federation, but was not registered to run for the election. Being an ardent fighter for liberty, he belongs to many related organizations (Human Rights Foundation, The Freedom Association), and is a member of Great Britain’s Independence Party (UKIP) represented in the European Parliament. In 2009 he visited Sofia, Bulgaria, where he gave a lecture on political correctness, which did not go unnoticed by “Radio Svoboda” (Liberty Radio). Head of the programme “The Boundaries of Time” Mr Vladimir Tolz, dedicated his programme of 24 November 2009 to the subject of political correctness. This release was also taken notice of in Lithuania – its summary was published by the weekly Atgimimas.

Through the mediation of priests Petras Kimbrys and Robertas Grigas, the editorial office of NŽ- A contacted Vladimir Bukovsky and received full script of the said programme, which by then was published only by a small Estonian internet portal. With the kind consent of the author, we are pleased to present our readers with the full text of his lecture. It was translated from Russian into Lithuanian by Mr Nerijus Šepetys.

The text of the lecture:

You know what – I am mostly amazed at the events and processes, which started in the world right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We all know that the Soviet Union was destined to fall apart. My friend Andrej Amalrik in 1969 wrote a book titled “Will the Soviet Union Last till 1984?”). Of course, he had in mind not the calendar year, but the Orwelian 1984. In any case, he almost hit it right, with a slight discrepancy of several years. And the plot he describes also came true – he predicted that the Soviet Union will break down into separate national republics.

It turned out to be that his forecast was fully realistic. And it is not only his personal opinion, but the shared view of us all. He only knew better how to formulate, convey, and argue it. So the downfall of the Soviet Union was by no means a surprise for me. In 1989 – 1990 I myself was about to release a small book in the West which thoroughly explained why communism was destined to collapse. The book received a cold welcome due to one peculiar reason. Back in 1989, in France everyone would say: “He made a gross exaggeration! How come! The Soviet Union now, with perestroika, gets back on track, and he wants to bury it…”. And when it appeared in Germany in 1991, everyone said: “Well, the Soviet Union is down, so what is there to write about?” So the book did not gain any popularity neither here nor there, and it was hard to predict where and when to release it.

The events that took place 20 years ago were by no means unexpected. But the events that ensued took us indeed by great surprise. So what did in fact happen? Firstly, it is what had not occurred – the reflection of this horrendous phenomenon, unique in the history of the world, which destroyed people by the millions. The attempts to philosophically reflect upon phenomena of the kind, make proper conclusions, understand the underlying reasons how things like that could have happened with us, civilized people – this has never occurred. Far from it, some processes started to unleash and they were rather illogical, to say the least.

After the Second Word War, after the collapse of Nazism, it seemed that the political balance in the world has shifted to the left (it is obvious when we take into consideration that Nazism was considered a right wing ideology. By mistake, as a matter of fact, but it’s another subject). So in the wake of the collapse of Nazism the public opinion has moved leftwards, but nothing of the kind – when the opinions must have shifted rightwards – happened after the breakdown of communism.

But what happened after the collapse of communism? All over the world, especially in Europe, left wing politicians and parties come to power. Therefore, the move was clearly to the left, which seems illogical to me. Moreover, no hopes cherished back in 1989 (which were so high) ever came true. Communism survived. Francisco Fukuyama could have said that it was the end of history, but history proved otherwise – Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea remained communist. And in the very post-communist countries the processes did not go too far either. All what happened there were in fact cosmetic, exterior changes. Several personalities were replaced with others, who also happened to come from the communist establishment. Those countries appeared to be not free, but rather densely meshed by the remains of the nomenclature (communist establishment). But it was what happened in the West that surprised me most. It is at this time that the utopian ideologies appeared in the West. If we were to pinpoint when political correctness came into being, I could specify precisely – it came into being at the beginning of the nineties of the 20th century.

This movement, as a phenomenon or rather a deviation from the norm of political correctness, existed before that, too. My first encounter with it happened when I worked at Stanford University. It must have been back in 1984. One day I was walking down to my laboratory and approached a door. In front of me there were two girls coming down the stairs. I opened the door and held open for them the way I would have held it for anyone – be it a man or woman, young or old. It was an act of mere politeness. They stared at me and uttered with undisguised contempt: “male chauvinist pig”.

I was greatly surprised, I did not understand their reaction, and, having entered the laboratory, told the story to the laboratory guys asking them: “what was it?” They started laughing like a drain and explained: “you see, there is Berkley University close by; people call it the People’s Republic of Berkeley, because all weird radical left-wing movements are born there”.

The philosophy of student revolution of 1968 was shaped at Berkley, and now there is a feminist movement spreading there. According to the feminists, we repress them when we speak to them like they were women, when we treat them like women. They even have a concept that they promote – women are a social construct, so if men would start treating women like men, they would indeed become men. In their view, it is our attitude towards them that shape them the way they are”. And, what is most surprising, they even performed the experiment in one of the leading universities at the end of the 20th century. They took babies of both sexes and raised them in the same conditions: same food, same clothing, same games and education (I am surprised anyone would give them a permission to do that).

Surely, this experiment did not bring any expected results. They boys did not lose any of the organs that they had from birth, and the girls did not grow any extra ones. On the whole, the boys’ penchant for guns did not go, just like that one of the girls’ for puppets. Although the experiment failed, it did not stop the feminist women. On the contrary, they got even more involved and devoted even more attention to it. As a result, the concept born within the walls of Berkley University and saying that our stereotypical behaviour with women makes them the way they are, that is, victims of manliness, has shockingly spread everywhere.

My friends at Stanford laboratory laughed at that back in 1984, but 10 years later this crazy concept lacking any scientific evidence, became dominant throughout the world. All universities had departments of gender studies opened. But what was to explore there, if you forgive me? As a physiologist I cannot understand, because sexual relations existed for millions of years, and nothing new came into being. So why do we need to study it all now? What do we get from it, and what are the attributes of academic activity involved here? In any case, the number of departments grew very fast, and first and foremost they started to investigate our sins. Men’s sins. We do not behave properly, do not look at women the right way…

Countless new theories, first of all linguistic ones, came into being. Remember Orwell saying that the leftists always seek to win the terminological war first. And so it went: you cannot call them Miss or Missis, because this is how we define their marital status – this is unacceptable. An unlikely form for the English language showed up – Mis. It is hard to pronounce, but it was only the beginning. They went on saying that it is indecent to say history (his story), you should rather say her story. Countless linguistic novelties fell on our heads: we were told that we cannot use the word seminary, because it is originated form the word “semen” – one should say ovulary instead. And, on the whole, how should we call women? It was a great puzzle for the new academics.

The word woman contains the word man and this is terrible. Call it female – even worse. There is the word male in it. So they coined a new term to define women: wofe (wo from woman and fe from female). And now we are to call them this way, otherwise we are male chauvinist pigs!

It sounds nonsensical. Aren’t there enough madmen in the world? I was once incarcerated with many madmen and got fully used to them. But the thing is that the present day society, especially American, is primitive. It takes in any folly and soon turns it obligatory to anyone. Especially the American society. Although the European societies are surely no less conformist. So we are to accept everything thrown at us for the sake of success. For life to go smoothly, it is by no means unacceptable to be non-conformist.

History of Political Correctness [01/03][02/03][03/03]
This kind of American pattern has quickly spread as mandatory. It is a mandatory paradigm, because it is incredibly incorporated into legislation. Among other things, this new feminist movement blamed men of sexism. In their view, all men are sexists because they see a sex object in a woman, therefore everything in relation with the woman or sex needs to be eliminated. Any flirt between a man and a woman was called an “oppressive action” (with exploitation in mind). Therefore, if you make a joke at your co-worker, or, even worse, your subordinate, you are in trouble – she will sue you and you will lose your job.

Moreover, as if that were not enough, they gained the momentum and were not likely to stop! These people never stop, they go on and on. The only solution is to shoot them. If you do not do that, they will carry on without limits. Let us take the stereotype of a man. A man is an oppressor, therefore there is no place for him in power- there should be women only. A male is a rapist and a seducer. A big noisy campaign called “child abuse”, hysteria about “child exploitation” erupted in America. Right at that time I was about to leave America, so I made the sign of the cross and said to myself: “Thanks God! I do not want to come back here! Entire kindergartens were forced to close under suspicion of child abuse, but it was pure nonsense.

Soon afterwards the situation was cleared, and all the incarcerated were released. But an avalanche of recollections engulfed the society. The elderly sobbingly told of how they were sexually depraved, although the period that there stories covered could not have stuck in their memories. A grown up cannot adequately remember what happened with him at the age of two or three. Notwithstanding congressmen, senators, etc… A wave of “artificial memory” has risen. Out of the blue, all the depravations of childhood days would come to people’s mind. This all was nurtured by a simple feminist idea: a man is a predator, therefore he should never be allowed to govern. At the same time a campaign determined to have at least half of important positions filled by women came into being.

A big fuss was caused about the right to serve in the army. Not in auxiliary divisions but where it is most inconvenient – in military units, that is where people live in outside conditions, where they dress out together and go to shower together – where the conditions are most uncomfortable. So what is to be surprising there that after several months of service women would go to courts and file cases about “sexual harassment” – someone peeked from the back, whistled, and … this is sexual harassment.

By the way, no male manager would speak with his subordinate face to face. He would definitely call a witness, because he can be sued for sexual harassment, and this would be the end to his carrier.

But it does not end here. You cannot say that women are less inclined towards certain professions. For example, the president of Harvard University said in a private meeting that women, due to certain reasons, perhaps lack of interest, seldom chose precise sciences, especially mathematics. He lost his position, because a wild wave of hysteria followed his remark. He had to write an application to quit the job. And this is a mass phenomenon, reminiscent of the terror of 1937.

I remember when I came to the United States to give lectures (once or twice a year I would earn my living by reading lectures at universities). And here is the main news, at least how it is understood in Europe – communism is about to fall, Soviet Union is facing collapse, everything is on the verge. And what is the main piece of news on CNN? It is a story of a girl who was not accepted to join the boy scouts, because she is not a boy… That’s why everything must be changed so that girls would be admitted to join boy scouts. And it was the main piece of news.

I went on giving my lecture and explaining what was going on in the Soviet Union. After the lecture there was a question and answer session and a young lady, obviously not a student, stood up and asked: “Tell me, when will at last there will be women in Soviet Politburo? I replied: “It’s what they need most now. Yes, it’s what’s needed most, I fully agree with you!“

You see, the Americans had a surge of insanity, which had exceeded the previously accepted threshold of insanity. They had a wave of unhealthy campaign for racial equality. The campaign started on a fully sound basis at the end of the fifties, sixties and seventies. At that time the remains of racism were really obvious, especially in the South, but in the North it was never there. This was a really unacceptable and meaningless phenomenon, and the case for racial equality was fully grounded. But, just like all other campaigns of the kind, after this campaign reached its goals, its activists carried on until they got to the point of absurdity and started demanding for “positive discrimination”. The activists behind this campaign were blinded by utopia. They did not believe that inequality was a natural state, that we are all born unequal. It is like the followers of Rousseau, who believed that a human being is like a piece of clay and you can knead it into any shape you like.

Therefore, the followers of the campaign took the fact that the racial equality movement did not produce a sufficient number of successful black people, such as professors, millionaires, etc., as their failure, and resolved to strive for equal results rather than equal opportunities. And so they started introducing the so called “positive discrimination”, which brought about the existing quotas. Those are not official, but they are working. Every university has to enrol a certain percentage of the black people. It has never been put down in writing anywhere, but everyone knows that if they don’t do this, they will have their eyes scratched, they will face endless court trials, and alike troubles. Quotas at work. Here is a private company, and, out of the blue, a public fury erupts – why is there only one woman on the board? Women make up about half of all inhabitants on the earth, so they should make about 50 per cent of all the board members. And so on. Isn’t it madness to push people to certain positions judging merely by the colour of their skin or gender, even if they could not claim such positions based on their personal characteristics and skills?

Let’s go back to the army. When women gained their right to serve in the army, they found a great niche: they go to the army, serve there for three months or so, file a case of sexual harassment, the court awards them several million dollars and they leave. It is a reasonable way to get rich in two or three years. In the US army, a new type of uniform appeared – that is of a “pregnant soldier”. I never have fancied I would live to see such a thing! The very concept of “pregnant soldier” is a terminological contradiction. Men are supposedly there to protect pregnant women. This riddle is not for my mind. Nevertheless, there is such a uniform.

The next step is priests. A priest is an authoritative figure, therefore it is not proper that only men are priests. Women should also be priests. A fury broke out and eventually there are women priests, who took little time to re-write the Bible. Now there is a new, feminist bible, where the Lord Almighty is a woman. I have a friend Winston, who is a grandson of Churchill. His mother, Pamela Harriman, died. She was a long-serving US ambassador to France, and she died while serving her duty as an ambassador, so she was eligible to a state funeral. Winston arrived to the US, and as he later told me, went to Arlington cathedral and saw that a woman priest was in charge. He approached her and said: “Lady, there is an ancient family tradition that during the funerals of parents the oldest son has to read a scripture from the Bible. It is a long standing tradition of the Churchill family. She went through several pages of the Bible he brought with himself and said: “No, you cannot read this. It is an incorrect Bible”. But she met the wrong guy – it was none other than Churchill. He looked at her and said: “Lady, if you do not like the Bible of our family, this is your business. But this is the family of my mother and I am going to read what I deem necessary, and whenever I deem necessary. If you have problems with that, I turn around and leave!“ Because it was a state funeral, the woman priest conceded and made everything appropriately. But think about it for a moment. What insolence is it to tell the son what he should and should not read from his family Bible at his mother’s funeral! What a nasty point has been reached!

If only it would all end with the feminism and racial issues alone! No, it all continues further, involving ever new minorities. The disabled, the incapables. They now demand that every building be adjusted for them to enter. Of course, this is all understandable with public offices in mind. But how about when they turn to private shops and say that if they are not readjusted for he disabled to enter, they will be shut down, the matter gets really serious. Small businesses cannot afford such expenses. In certain cases they have to close the shop.

The linguistic experiments that followed the gender studies have an anecdotal end. One must not say “dwarf” now, but rather use the expression “vertically challenged”. I don’t even know how to say it in Russian. A fat person is also a “no, no”. You must say a person with dimension problems instead. A quasi-orwelian era has dawned, which is far from funny, because it is followed by legislation. The all-encoding legislation. And all of the above are not mere ideological demands of some wacky personalities any more, because now it is a law! For example, current legislation defines the so called hate speech, which reminds me of the ill-memory Article 70 of the Soviet criminal code, under which I spend my term in prison.

All the definitions are very dispersed, and the ideology is especially hard to codify. If you attempt to do that, twaddle will be the outcome. Now we can apply the same “hate speech” to virtually all acknowledgements of sexual or racial differences. Basically, you do not have a right to recognize such things, and if you do so in public, you will be guilty of what is called hate speech. Here is an example: last year all public attributes of Christmas were eliminated in England. In our country Christmas is forbidden in public space. If you want, go ahead and celebrate it at home, but staging a Christmas performance in a public place is forbidden, because it will be offensive to Muslims. The English national flag (St. George Cross, red cross against white background, not to be mistaken for Great Britain’s flag) – forbid. Why? Again, the Muslims will be disappointed because it will remind them of the crusades. It is curious that the Muslims themselves do not support such decisions at all, and it is not they who initiate the changes of the kind. In a shop next to my home a Pakistani owner, a full-fledged orthodox, hoisted the flag of St. George to tell his clients: “No, it is not me, it is your leftists, your own white imbeciles came about with this bunk. I have nothing to do with it, I have nothing against Christmas or St. George flag, therefore, I put up the flag in my own place…”

What is it? Now the censorship has reached such a limit that I think that if Shakespeare lived in our times he would not be able to write. Many of his works are not welcome on stage nowadays: The Merchant of Venice – anti-Semitism, Othello – racism, The Taming of the Shrew – sexism. One teacher even refused to take her pupils to “Romeo and Juliet”, claiming that it is a “hideous heterosexual show”. The censorship is now omnipresent and supported by the criminal law. Recently, one deputy of the National Assembly made a public joke about homosexuals, and was fined with a hefty sum – 20 000 euro, if I am not mistaken. Today it is only a fine, but soon they will start imprisoning people for things like that. We know how quickly it all evolves, how suddenly reactions of the kind develop into repressions. This is what this case is all about!

Yuri Bezmenov ex KGB Agent, employed with Novosty: Interview with G. Edward Griffin: Deception was my Job: Life Under Soviet Collectivism & Subversion of the Free World Press [01/09] [02/09] [03/09] [04/09] [05/09] [06/09] [07/09] [08/09] [09/09]

Lecture by Tomas Schuman (aka Yuri Bezmenov) former KGB Propaganda Expert with Novosty Press: Psychological Warfare Techniques: Subversion & Control of Western Society [01/07] [02/07] [03/07] [04/07] [05/07] [06/07] [07/07]
I start with the same question: what is it? Are those random episodes, just a bunch of weird people who blatantly, obsessively force others to live according to their disgustful ideas? Alas, it is more complicated then that. Many of you must have heard of philosopher Herbert Marcuse from the Frankfurt School. It is his ideas that are being put into being in today’s world. And they are very simple ideas. Marcuse was a Marxist revisionary, and did not agree with Marx only because Marx thought the revolutionary class was the proletariat, while Marcuse claimed that the proletariat is a dwindling class, therefore the true revolutionary bridgehead included all sorts of minorities, outcasts, pathological personalities – all of them together making up the revolutionary element of the society. One of Marcus’s works is called Repressive Tolerance, where he argues that it is necessary to proclaim any pathology a norm, and only then, he says, we will destroy the bourgeoisie society. The activists who supposedly protect the rights of minorities, homosexuals, and feminists do not care about the minorities as such at all. They, just like Lenin, use the minorities as a tool to exercise pressure on the society and to control it. And, surely, they bring more harm than good to the minorities themselves. The minorities suffer from the activists’ activities even more than us all.

Some seven years ago my friend’s wife in America created a movement “Women against feminism”. It stared as an initiative of her friends, but now some 2 million women are involved in the movement. American women start realising that this “new feminism” movement is actually a movement against them. It destroys their lives, it prevents them from choosing freely what they like or dislike, and forces them to put up with something that is favourable to a bunch of activists only.

We are facing a serious ideology here, which, by taking the shape of supposedly such a stupid and absurd thing as political correctness, is trying to destroy our society. Its proponents do not care about the minorities nor do they care about their rights. The worse-off the minorities are, the better it is for the said proponents, because any difficult situation enables them to defend the minorities even more forcefully. Their goal is to destroy our society. It is in essence a rancorous version of Marxism.

I am coming back to where I began. Why did it all come to the surface in the wake of the downfall of communism? Well, it’s very simple – alas, we were not allowed to finish the job. Back in 1991 I was travelling to Russia and tried to explain to everybody I could that it is not enough to let communism go. It will not wither by itself. We have to finish off with it! We need to condemn it!

We need a Nuremberg process in Moscow which will reveal all the reasons, all the crimes, secrets, and all the philosophical foundations of this horrendous phenomenon which has destroyed tens of million of people in our country and hundreds of millions worldwide. We had a historical duty to do it, but we failed to convince the then government to take it up. First, it clearly understood that such a process would remove any chance for them to stay in power. But the most stubborn was the West. I saw with my own eyes hundreds of telegrams to Yeltsin from all over the world convincing him NOT to organize such a trial, not to open up the archives, not to reveal all the crimes. Not only because the world was so entangled with Moscow (although the links were much tighter than they seemed to be), but purely for ideological reasons. As one of the socialist leaders said to Gorbachev: “The fall of socialism in the East will cause the crisis of the very idea in the West, and we do not want it!“

This is why the West helped sustain the Soviet empire during the final days of its agony. Only during the Gorbachev rule as much as 45 billion dollars were wasted for that purpose, and they were never regained. The Western leaders continued coming to support Gorbachev till the very end. As you remember, Bush went to Kiev and wooed the Ukrainians into not separating from the Soviet Union. He talked about absurd things and deemed it to be his duty. The West was at the rescue of the Soviet Union.

This is why in the wake of the collapse of communism, when there was a good opportunity to bring this system to trial, to reveal all of its crimes and the underpinning reasons that brought them into being, to reveal everything, the Western leaders strictly opposed this idea, and continued making pressure on Yeltsin. As a result Yeltsin did not commit himself to take this step.

And what would we have said in the process of the trial if it did take place? What were we to reveal to the humanity during the process? Very simple things – all the fancy talk of the intelligentsia about the highest justice and equality ends with the empty shelves in the shops, long queues and the Gulag. And it cannot end otherwise! Or else there is proof of it which would have made it obvious, and not only to the very far sighted ones, that it is impossible to live in utopia and it will always end with the Gulag, because the utopians never admit that they are wrong. This is what was needed. In its due time the Nuremberg process discredited the ideas of racism, eugenics and the like. The Moscow process must have equally discredited all kinds of collectivist, socialist ideas and utopias, first and foremost the idea of social engineering. To force an ideology on someone else should be proclaimed a criminal act in this world! But it had not happened.

Today we are paying the price for it. And we don’t know for how much longer we are going to do that.

Today we have reached the point when a politically correct president is elected. Not because he had bright ideas, but because he is black. America should have demonstrated the whole world how progressive, non-racist it is, how they came to elect a black president. It does not matter that he has no clue about politics or economics, that he will spell lots of trouble and already has – to Americans this is all irrelevant as long as they look progressive in the eyes of the world.

The situation that we have now is the result of the fact that in the turning moment of history we failed to organize a Nurnberg trial in Moscow.

* *

Vladimir Bukovsky: European Union, the New Soviet Union [01/02] [02/02]. [Ukraine Interview of Dr. Bukovsky] [Frost over the World: Vladimir Bukovsky Interview] [ITV: Bukovsky: Socialism's Doomed Utopia]
You are asking about having a discussion? They pay no attention to us. I would be glad to argue – my tongue is sharp, I would smash the views of any of the politically righteous in minutes. I would simply crash them into pieces. But they are not getting into that. They do not allow us into mass-media. Being a fully-fledged British citizen, I cannot write an article on it nor publish a book, and no one would invite me to any debates on this subject. Because public debates on the matter never take place. This ideology is simply imposed on us. I have nothing against mad people. I repeat, I am a tolerant man. I have spent many years in a madmen’s house and got along with them all really well. My only condition is not to have alien ideas imposed on me.

I remember the first argument with the KGB interrogator. I was 16 years old back then. He asked: “Why do you hate us so much?” I replied: “God forbid, it’s not that I hate you. I simply do not believe in what you are doing. You want to build communism – go ahead build it, but I don’t want to. If we agreed that I have two square meters for myself where I have the freedom not to build communism, I would be happy… You can build it all around me, as much as you like, I am not going to hinder you. But in those few square metres I will not build it…” “How dare you speak like that? All Soviet nation builds communism with great enthusiasm”. – “Well, let the Soviet nation go ahead and build it, but I am obviously not the Soviet nation.”

This is what utopians cannot take. They cannot accept the simple idea that one cannot impose on another person an ideology which that person does not believe in. No matter if these are communists or advocates of political correctness. At once you will become the enemy of the mankind. You continue arguing about sexual relations and sexual orientation it means you are intolerant, you are a homophobe. Why? Because you dare to disagree with their line of thinking. This is what those crooks and rogues are doing – they shift concepts.

Once Queen Victoria remarked straight to the point when asked on the subject. The Queen said: “I do not care what they do as long as they do not do it on the street and do not frighten horses.” My approach is rather the same. But only try and say that you disagree with those activists… You know, there is a nomenclature here, because for the activists it is their career, life, status, money. They gain influence over the minorities, just like Lenin gained influence over the proletariat, and then proceed to use that influence as leverage in their struggle for power.

This is not a philosophical problem. If it were so, we would sit under concern as Socrates did and argue among those who are interested in the subject. But no – they fall on you with courts. And why courts? Why this hate speech? We have sufficient legislation to solve those disputes over the deprivation of dignity. If I insulted anyone with a joke, let him sue me in court under the civilian proceeds, why are all those special punitive laws on incorrect speech needed? They are needed to bully people into silence, that’s what they are for. You and I are experienced people. We used to live under totalitarian conditions and we know how those things work. And you would not say “well, that is only ideology, with time it will straighten itself up”. Communism has never straightened itself up until it was overthrown.

* *

You said that you do not feel all that in Bulgaria at present, that you are waiting for something positive to come out of it. You know, it reminds me of the Western reaction to the Soviet communism. They also said that something positive was to come out of it all. All the talks about how bad things are there must be a mere exaggeration. And it has nothing to do with us in our country.

I don’t see why we should repeat the same mistakes the West was making all those 70 years throughout the Cold War. You will also have political correctness, let me assure you. You are in the European Union, and political correctness is but an EU ideology. It will reach you from Brussels and become obligatory. And you will have nowhere to hide, because the Brussels decisions have precedence over the decisions of national parliaments. The problem is not the idea that you may discuss. The problem is that discussions on the idea are not allowed. Discussing it will soon be punishable by prison. Trust me. I am an old jailbird, and I know when it whiffs with prison. And in the West this whiff starts to appear. This is the thing. It is not a matter of free choice. It will reach you like a ban on smoking. Today you think that it does not concern you. It will. In the West they always thought that they had nothing to do with communism. They had. This is why it is better to be prepared in advance. And what is positive? Well, a positive side can be found about anywhere. Communism had its positive sides, too. If we were friends back then, we were friends for real, for ages, risking lives for each other. And this means something. Under communism, atheism and the struggle for domination made science develop in huge strides. We had great physicists, mathematicians – well, that is positive, who would argue? But this doesn’t mean that the very phenomenon was positive. You could have achieved the same things by other more vegetarian means, couldn’t you?

Duke Snider (1926-2011)

February 27th, 2011

It was with a great deal of sadness that I read today that my childhood hero, Duke Snider, passed away at the age of 84.

Back in the 50’s, it seemed that every kid where I grew up in upstate New York  was a baseball fan of one of three teams – the Yankees, the Giants or the Brooklyn Dodgers – to the exclusion of the other two.  Everyone in my family was a Dodger fan, and although we tolerated the Giants, we absolutely despised the Yankees (maybe because they beat the Dodgers so many times in the World Series).  By the time I started seriously following baseball in 1960 at the age of 10, the Giants and Dodgers had already moved to California.  But during those  years before the New York Mets came on the scene in 1962, we were still staunch Dodger fans.

My earliest memories of the Dodgers go back to the World Series of 1959, when they beat the Chicago White Sox in five games.  There were some great players on that team:  Gil Hodges, Junior Gilliam, John Roseboro, Wally Moon, Don Drysdale, Larry Sherry – but the one that captured my imagination was the center fielder:  Edwin Donald “Duke” Snider.

When I started collecting baseball cards the next season, I traded with every kid in the neighborhood who had a Duke Snider card.  By the time I stopped collecting cards a few years later, I had Duke Snider cards from 1952, 1954, and 1956 through 1962.  Sadly, when I went off to college, my father decided my baseball card collection (numbering about 2000) was taking up too much space, so he took the box out to the garage and stopped the first kids to walk by, asking them if they wanted any.  As word caught on around the neighborhood, within about a half an hour (so I found out later), my entire collection, to include all those Duke Sniders, were gone.

I actually saw the Duke in person once.  It was the summer of 1963, and my family traveled down to Yonkers (just north of the Big Apple) to visit my aunt and uncle.  My father, my brother and I went to the Polo Grounds on Saturday for Camera Day.  By then, Duke Snider had been traded to the Mets.  As the players strolled along the warning track, posing for the fans, I suddenly find myself within a few feet of the Duke himself.  I took a few photos, but what I really wanted was an autograph.  As a thirteen-year-old, I was faced with a dilemma:  Do I respectfully ask, “Mr. Snider, may I please have your autograph?” or do I take a bolder approach:  ”Hey, Duke!  How about an autograph?”  I chose the latter.  The only response I noticed was a slightly faded smile on his face; he kept on walking.  I kind of doubt he would have given me an autograph if I had chosen the more polite approach, but I’ll never know for sure.

That was almost half a century ago, and so much in this world has changed since then.  A few months later, a President was gunned down in Dallas, then came the Vietnam War, the Summer of Love, Watergate, and so many other events that complicated our lives.  But for me, Duke Snider represented a simpler time – a time of heroes and of innocence.  He will be missed.

Global Warming Causing Snowstorms?

December 29th, 2010

In light of recent record-breaking snowstorms, both in the United States and Europe, I think it’s time to re-visit one of my favorite topics:  global warming (or, as it’s been renamed in recent years, climate change).

The meteorological dogma of the Global Warm-ongers over the last several decades has been that man-made carbon dioxide and other so-called “greenhouse gases” have caused the Earth’s temperature to rise to dangerous levels, melting the icecaps and threatening life as we know it.  How then can this phenomenon explain the kind of weather we’ve been experiencing this winter?  That’s simple; the moisture added to the atmosphere by the melting icecaps manifests itself as precipitation in the form of snow.  Bottom line:  if there weren’t global warming, there wouldn’t be all this additional snow.

On the surface, this explanation has a certain amount of plausibility about it – until we examine what was being said about global warming and snow barely a decade ago.

On March 20, 2000, an article appeared in the UK Independent entitled “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” (here’s a link to the article).  The author, Charles Onians, quotes Dr. David Viner, a research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (Note: CRU was later to be the source of the “Climategate” emails). Dr. Viner predicted that “within a few years, winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event.’”

“‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ he said.”

In searching for articles about the recent snows in Great Britain, I discovered something very interesting.  Parts of the UK enjoyed a White Christmas in 2009 as well, and on January 7, 2010, NASA reported that “[s]now blanketed Great Britain.”  Here’s a link to NASA’s satellite imagery of the event, which “shows snow cover over the entire island of Great Britain.”

A “very rare and exciting event”? I think not.

But the British aren’t the only ones who predicted the end of snow as a result of climate change.  On September 24, 2008, environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in a Los Angeles Times op-ed entitled “Palin’s Big Oil infatuation” (here’s a link to the op-ed), reminisced about snow sledding in Virginia in his youth, blaming Sarah Palin and Big Oil for the demise of those wonderful times.  Just over a year later, from December 2009 to February 2010 , the DC/Virginia area experienced record amounts of snow.  And this December, snow reached as far south as Roanoke and Virginia Beach.

So what’s the answer:  Does man-made climate change cause snowless winters, or does it cause blizzards?  Another simple answer:  yes.

My sister-in-law once told me that her philosophy professor declared that a statement that answers every question actually answers no questions.  If anthropogenic global warming (AGW) can account for snow (as well as a lack of snow), for hurricanes (as well as a lack of hurricanes), for flooding (as well as droughts) – then it apparently answers all questions regarding climate. 

Which means it answers none.

Juan Williams Fired

October 21st, 2010

This event is, to me, one of the most incredible and telling events to happen since Obama was elected. Juan Williams a black liberal has been fired simply becuase he’s not liberal enough. I can’t think of anything this liberal has ever said that I agree with, yet he’s never has been as blantantly stupid a lib as other’s on NPR.

For many years now and especially since the rise and dominance of Fox news, libs have been screaming for the government to pass the “Fairness” doctrine.

What your seeing at NPR is a fly speck compared to the purging that would occur of voices not “liberal enough” if an Obama directed, FCC were ever given the power to enforce it’s opinion as to what is fair, in the news being reported to Americans. It might be short lived as NPR and other Obama socialist support groups scramble to contain this in your face outrage but all should remember this event. If libs get there way, in the future, you will never hear a story like this, but it will happen non stop.

Meanwhile I will be hoping that NPR in the end will be the one to get fired.


August 9th, 2010

Reading this morons blog is kinda like walking down a sidewalk and seeing a big turd or something dead in your path. It’s a disgusting site and it smells bad, but its hard not to look. But this post it curious. He spends most of it slamming North Korea, and lauding the policies that have have made South Korea the powerhouse economy it is.

I say its curious, because most of the garbage he pushes for the United States are the very same things that exist in North Korea. At the same time, for his own country he condems the things that made South Korea (modeled on the priciples of the US pre 1965) great.

What is it with Libs? They seem to want all the world to enjoy what we have while insisting we give it up as evil and exploitive. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.


Beware the Government-Media Complex!

August 3rd, 2010

Beware the Government-Media Complex!

A Nation on the Edge of Revolt

August 3rd, 2010

Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Roberts wonder aloud whether the power grabs of the Obama Administration and the ruling class mentality of entrenched Democrat and Republican political machines will lead to a second Revolutionary War.

I’ll lay it out bluntly for you; either the American people—not extremists, but good and decent patriots like your neighbors and yourselves—will revolt and destroy the ruling class and reform our government based upon first principles, or the United States we know as our forefather conceived it is dead.

I do not state this as hyperbole. I do not state this to incite violence. I state this as nothing more or less than an observation of both history and current events. While we are a relatively young nation, our government is the oldest on the planet. Since our founders met in Philadelphia, the French have gone through five republics. Every nation in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America and North America has seen governments rise and fall, but our resilient democratic republic, the “Great Experiment,” has soldiered on.

All cultures and governments, however, rot. This inevitably comes from inside, as a cancer. Our politicians view the people as rubes and subjects, and treat them as such. They imagine themselves a ruling class that exists for their own edification, at the expense of the nation as a whole.

When nations reach this point, they either collapse, or the people reform or replace their governments.

We have arrived at that time. Reform increasingly seems to be a fleeting option. Republicans and Democrats differ only in how they plan to loot the public coffers. Our present Congress and Administration are merely more transparent in their corruption and disdain than their predecessors.

Our would-be ruling class has abandoned the principles that founded this nation. They are attempting to establish a state of affairs where the people serve the government and the government determines your success or failure. Corruption no longer matters. Sovereignty no longer matters. The rule of law no longer matters.

They have won in a bloodless coup.

Or so they would like you to think.

Whether they actually win or not depends upon how much you love your family and your nation and the principles that made this nation great. Our founders themselves believed in the right of revolt, and knew better than any of us that governments must be replaced from time to time. They were wise enough to provide us with a constitutional framework that will outlast any government, including this one. We can dispose of this government, and restore the Constitution that has served us and the rest of the world so well for so long.

We stand at the brink.

We are on the right side of history. Our would-be rulers, fat on self-appointed largesse and drunk on their own purloined power, imagine us subjects, not free men and women.

Revolution is a brutish, nasty business. Innocents will fall along with patriots and the corrupt, and success is not assured.

In a letter to James Warren in 1789, Samuel Adams foresaw our current state.

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.
The question for you, my fellow Americans, is simple.

Will you fight, or will you surrender your liberties?

I pray for peace.

But I prepare for war.


Alvin Greene: The Putney Swope Effect?

June 14th, 2010

When the election results began coming in from around the country on the evening of June 8, 2010, there were a number of surprises.  But the biggest upset occurred in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in South Carolina.  Political neophyte Alvin M. Greene defeated former state legislator and retired circuit court judge Vic Rawl.

The initial reaction among Democrats was “Alvin who?”, but as more became known about Greene, confusion turned to outrage.  It seems that last November, Mr. Greene was arrested for showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student.  Although charged, Greene has not yet been indicted, nor has he entered a plea.  As the nominee started doing media interviews, it became painfully obvious that Alvin Greene is “not ready for prime time.”

Theories began to emerge about how an unemployed veteran living with his elderly father could defeat a seasoned politican with a distinguished legal background, especially considering that Greene apparently gave no speeches, made no public appearences and generally did nothing to win the nomination.

Some of these theories involved the candidate’s name.  “Al”vin “Green”e was said to remind voters of the singer Al Green.  The spelling of his last name (Green with a final silent E) was supposedly more typical of blacks than whites, as was the first name of Alvin.  The fact that names were listed alphabetically on the ballot was also said to give Greene an advantage over Rawl.

Other explanations were far more nefarious in nature.  Conspiracy theories abounded, most of which revolved around Republican dirty tricks.  Someone  must have fronted the $10,400 filing fee for the hapless Greene.  Perhaps he was paid off by the GOP to wreak havoc with the Democratic primary.  The name of notorious South Carolina Republican operative Rod Shealy was bantered about as a possible mastermind behind this political cabal.

Myself being a believer in Occam’s Razor (which essentially states that the simplest solution is usually the correct one), I have a much less convoluted explanation of why Alvin Greene, and not Vic Rawl, won the senatorial nomination.  I call it the “Putney Swope Effect.”

Putney Swope is the protagonist of the 1969 film of the same name.  In the film, Swope is the “token Black” on the board of directors of an advertising agency.  When the chairman of the board dies unexpectedly, the board members are forced to elect a successor.  Since the agency bylaws prohibit any member from voting for himself, the safest bet seems to be to vote for the one board member least likely win – Putney Swope.  Whether out of sympathy or to block any serious candidate from gaining a majority, every one of the board members votes for Putney, and he’s elected chairman by an overwhelming margin.

Could it be that South Carolina primary voters looked upon Alvin Greene as the Putney Swope of 2010?  His opponent, Vic Rawl, appeared to be the odds on favorite for the nomination.  His legislative and judicial experience was much more impressive than Greene’s, which was nonexistant.  But primaries are the time to send a message, to let the party leadership know that  fresh new faces shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.  There would be plenty of opportunity to vote for Rawl in the general election in November.  But what harm would it do to cast a protest vote in an election that really didn’t matter all that much anyway?

Am I reading too much into the thought processes of the primary voters?  Wasn’t Greene a stealth candidate, a mystery man about whom absolutely nothing was known?  Not as much as some would have you believe.  Although Greene did little or nothing to put himself out to the electorate, he wasn’t totally ignored by the media prior to the election. 

In at least two pre-election articles comparing the Senate hopefuls appearing in the South Carolina media (May 15 and May 25), Greene came across much as more impressive than he has in post-election coverage.  A thirty-two-year- old African-American with military service as an intelligence specialist and a Bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of South Carolina, Greene must have seemed to many a viable alternative to the older (64-year-old) Rawl.  Add to this the anti-incumbent (read anti-traditionalist) sentiment among voters, and the Greene victory doesn’t seem that unlikely anymore.

In the movie “Putney Swope,” the board of directors live to regret having elected good old Putney, I’m sure there are more than a few Democrats in South Carolina who are experiencing buyer’s remorse over their vote for Alvin Greene.