- Archives -

Is Communism dead?

Some time ago, an acquaintance said: “Communism is over.”

I told him that it was naive of him to think that Communism was dead. Actually, Communism is more alive today than before. Of course nowadays Communism clothes itself in sheep’s skin in order to deceive people. It acts under other names, such as “democracy”, “social changes”, environment issues, globalization, etc. 

It is the affectation of the daily propaganda through/by the mass media, which makes people believe that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and of the Berlin Wall in the process, Communism came down too. 

Not only is Communism alive and active today, but the entire world is at present under its hidden power. 

For people who know little about history and the Marxist philosophy a brief clarification is necessary. The word Communism, as Christianity, has become out of fashion. Now we talk about “democracy” and its implementation. However, very few people know that Communism has two faces, like Janus the ancient Italian deity, one at the front and the other at the back.  

One of the Communist faces is national Communism -   Stalinist type; the other is international Communism - the Trotskyite. Communism, Stalinists type is ailing, with the collapse of the Former Soviet Union. But Communism, the Trotskyite type, is still among us and more powerful than ever. 

Here is a document from a friend[1] of mine who is telling us what the Trots [Trotskyites] are, and how effective they are in undermining traditional institutions to the almost total demise of the Catholic Church: or see link:http://www.nadirbridgebuilder.net/counterchurch.htm ]  and of the Christian civilization in the process.

N. M.

- The following comes to me from a good friend in Scandinavia.  Personal comments and observations, which may be useful -- not intended to be definitive analysis or authoritative critique.  It's not for the general list, but I think the viewpoints are corroborative about certain trends, particularly missed (or misunderstood, or misreported) here.

It almost seems as if whole debates take place among different versions of trots, "ex"-trots and followers-on.  Perhaps a lot of this has been missed here because the general public never realized the forum had simply moved out from under us.  Obviously, it makes a difference in trying decode our propaganda if one doesn't realize most of the arguments are irrelevant.  Maybe that's the message from some of Brzezinski's earlier books.

VA

+++++++++++

It could also mean "all is trot".

In my youth, I didn't study the ideas of the left and could not distinguish between trots, stalinists, marxists and leninists. We had all these flavours in my country and they didn't make sense to me.

Not before I read your forwards from Shamir did I understand a little more and not before yesterday did I get a frightening idea of the scope of the trot takeover in Europe. People can tell me many things but I can't see their points before my mind gets to work on the subject. So I was slow. However, what I saw of the trot takeover of Europe is certainly not mainstream and will not be for many years, perhaps never.

Trots built eurocommunism, "communism with a human face", to counter Stalinist USSR, not because they actually believed what they said. Some were bright and talented activists, who decided to infiltrate the enemys organizations. I am not saying that only because we can now see it happened. I also remember how leftists were encouraged to do just that in the 70s.

I don't know what happened in your country but I remember flower-power people cut their hair and started working for IBM. 1968 in Europe was closely related to your antiwar movements so perhaps the same thing happened in your country.

Some trots who worked for Palestinian organizations in the 70s, became members of the Swedish-Israel organization in the 90s. How fantastic.

Some trots who did their best to unseat de Gaulle became "greens". Among them were Cohn-Bendit and Joschka Fischer who both love federalism and the strangling central planning of Brusselles.

Our green party was an inherently conservative and popular movement that was turned into a trot platform.

The same thing happened to our very peculiar Left party, which was originally stalinist, afaik.

Barroso made a career in a Socialdemocratic party, some say. Other say he became a conservative leader. Anyway, he was the conservative candidate to replace the socialist Prodi, another trot. The idea is the left and the right take turns in leading the Commission. In reality, one trot follows another.

Prodi is/was a longtime friend of a powerful Italian banker. Was his name Benito Craxi? Anyway, we talked about it at the time.

In the UK, there are many trots in the government, though it seems the stalinists haven't given up yet.

Lionel Jospin is a trot. Mitterand, who worked for the Vichy government in his youth and later formed his own socialist party and designed Maastricht, may or may not have been a trot, but he did act like one.

The new leader of Spain is a trot.

All this happens without the White House speaking up against trotskyist communists leading Europe. This is a very important observation.

Trots liked to cheer NATO as it destroyed Yugoslavia. Trots don't like Russia and Putin. Trots don't like easteuropean communists. Trots like lower wages and more power to the companies. Trots like feminism and immigration. Trots do not like equality between different ethnic groups, which was why they hated Stalin so much. Trots like Israel.

{Some Trots opposed the Kosovo war. However, Trots DO talk about
"anti-Semitism", and have promoted the Holocaust Industry, as well as Speech Codes}

There is very little difference between European trots and US neocons.

I still don't know the ideology of trots. I see only their presence and their acts.  They do build a new USSR in Europe, which is similar in its lack of democracy but not similar to the real USSR:s great achievements for the people.

Trots could be footmen for more powerful groups. Activists often are.

There was always work and cheap food in the USSR. People had money in the bank and new buildings were not burdened with bank loans. In the EUSSR, we work for the banks, sometimes pay for food with credit and many are unemployed. We never achieve anything, we just trot along.

What I wrote about the USSR is based on what I learned at the university and, to a lesser extent, on what some Russians told me. However, the full perspective didn't emerge until I got on the net. We saw the USSR as an aggressor during the cold war. It attacked our neighbours and we saw the consequences.  It was a topdown structure that doesn't suit us but it is interesting to note what was
good there.


[See also "Red Symphony"]

A related article: 'Red' Rosa Parks: Fabricating An American Icon

By Henry Makow PhD 11-5-5

http://www.rense.com/general68/rosa.htm