“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
One of the most notorious monsters in recorded history has to be Josef Stalin. His utter contempt for human life is astonishing in its depravity and sheer evil. But that’s where Uncle Joe wore his shit-eatin’ grin proudly. Stalin regaled himself in the “armor of evil.” So terrified were the citizens of the Soviet Union, and those surrounding Stalin, that they dare not say or do anything that would run contrary to the goals of Stalin to enforce his socialist utopia. Stalin would even “liquidate” perfectly innocent people just to make an example out of them–the example being nobody better mess with Uncle Joe!
Now, I know one must be careful when comparing the monstrous crimes of Stalin and the like to those who may be ruling us today (wink). There was only one Stalin–only one Hitler. No one alive today is guilty of such unimaginable evil like the aforementioned … yet. Although there are many competing for their spot in the Monsters Hall of Fame alive today.
What I look at when studying the history of demons like Stalin is their ideology or beliefs. What drove them to commit such horrific crimes against humanity, against their own people, against their own families? Well, one common thread of ideological similarity between Hitler and Stalin was socialism itself. The state is all-powerful and supplies all spiritual and physical needs for the masses. And it is the masses, not the individual, that matters to the state. The individual means nothing in such systems; they are expendable; they can always be “replaced.”
Stalin’s reign of terror in the Soviet Union is unmatched in human history; it is the ultimate example of what can happen under the iron fist of a centrally-controlled, one-party regime which eschews all except the state. When the Bolsheviks defeated the Csarists in 1917, they set about wiping out the moral values of Russian society. The rule of law was replaced by the rule of force. Justice was dispensed from the barrel-end of a gun.
It’s also important to note that one of the first things the Bolsheviks set about doing was to take total control over the mass media. Prodigious amounts of propaganda was published and disseminated to the Russian masses. Stalin even went so far as to install speakers on poles in villages–even in the most remotest regions of the U.S.S.R.–for the express purpose of delivering daily propaganda that conditioned the masses to accept the omniscience and omnipotence of Stalin’s communist state. All media was strictly controlled by the state, and is to this day.
Stalin’s state, at least to me, is the archetype of what can happen when one is promoted, and promotes themselves, to god-like status and implements a system of complete and total collective subjugation–the individual is meaningless and can be wiped out at will, as long as it serves the state. Such a political system is devoid of all human decency and morality, since it is a hindrance and an irritant to the goals of the all-powerful and all-encompassing state machine.
Now, I would not compare Obama to Stalin per se. But what does bother me is Obama’s propensity to embrace Marxian socialist ideology. It’s enlightening to note that the word ideology itself holds many negative connotations. Ideology, in its true definition, is fanciful theorizing and assertions regarding the sociopolitical realm. Ideology is not based on human experience, reality, tradition, logic or reason. Ideology is a theory of what could be.
Like I said, Obama is not Stalin. And I pray the world will never see the likes of Stalin again. But I’m afraid Obama’s political ideology has more in common with Marx than it does Madison. Folks like Van Jones and Ron Bloom have been welcomed into the Obama Administration. I wrote about this in a previous article.
Then there’s the issue of Barry’s upbringing. Obama clearly states in his own book that he “sought out the Marxist professors.” It’s alleged Obama’s mother left little Barry with his grandparents to go off to study Critical Theory–a theory for conditioning the masses to accept communism born out of the Frankfurt School, i.e. Institute for Marxism.
We read daily the rhetoric of class warfare and identity politics that comes streaming forth from our now state-run press and the denizens of the Left. This is truly diabolical. Our First Amendment clearly guarantees freedom of the press. So, if the press is now controlled by the federal government, is this not a gross violation of the First Amendment?
Do you think I’m just throwing out scurrilous accusations toward the main-stream media? Well, consider this recent New York Times article which mentions the Administration’s policy of “quote approval” Joseph Farah wrote in response to the NYT article:
“It shows that most – not some – members of the print media establishment with access to the White House submit their copy to government officials for review, ‘correction’ and approval before it reaches the American people!”
Here are some of the key excerpts from the NYT piece:
- “The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.”
- “They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”
- “Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review. The verdict from the campaign – an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script – is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.”
- “Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.”
- “Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all mid-level aides in Chicago and at the White House – almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.”
- “Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”
- “From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a ‘top Democrat’ or a ‘Republican strategist.’”
- “Those [reporters] who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. ‘It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal.”
- “It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.”
You know, there’s a real simple solution to this sort of propaganda: TURN IT OFF! They’ll be all dressed up with nowhere to go. The reason I began this article with a brief mention of Josef Stalin is to clearly show–from a historical perspective–just how awful and evil a centrally-controlled, one-party system–where one person is proclaimed a demigod over all–can truly become. We’re not in Gulags (yet), but consider the direction we’re heading as a nation.
TURN IT OFF!