Another anniversary of the 1991 putsch against Gorbachev and our liberation from it. About 800 people went to a celebration organized by the Free Russia Party. I felt no inclination to stop as I drove past the meeting. There is no freedom, so what is there to celebrate? The years since then have been spent bringing back what we had before, only now in an even more twisted form.Anna Politkovskaya, 21 August 2005
On 2 June 1990 Boris Yeltsin held a press conference on Soviet television. He wanted to discuss the word “socialism.” Yeltsin said, “I think that the socialist nature, or the level and share of society’s socialist nature does not depend on the number of times the word ‘socialism’ is pronounced….” Yeltsin was at pains to explain that words were not everything. Some words, like the “s” word, were going to disappear. Russia was embarking on a very special game, a very special manuever. Yeltsin continued, “That is why the absence of the word ‘socialism’ in my speech does not in any way show that I altogether reject this idea. We simply have to give it a different sense. That’s the crux of the matter – [giving the word] a different sense, a different model. I will not depend on the name.”
In 1990 the Soviet Union, like Red China, was adopting market reforms. Seventy years earlier Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, announced a retreat into market capitalism under his New Economic Policy. In Lenin’s “Political Report to the Eleventh Party Congress” the Bolshevik leader congratulated his fellow communists on unanimously recognizing “that we lacked a real approach to socialist economy, to the task of building its foundations; that the only means of finding this approach was the New Economic Policy.” Lenin was amused that the enemies of socialism had misunderstood this policy, thinking the Bolsheviks were giving up their beliefs. “Let them go on fooling themselves,” Lenin snarled. He and his followers were still united. They were still socialists. The problem was not one of philosophical disagreement over socialism; rather, socialist revolutionaries did not know how to run an economy, and it was time to admit their incapacity. Like Gorbachev after him, Lenin acknowledged, “We cannot run the economy. This has been proved in the past year.” Lenin said this was a fundamental lesson which had to be learned. If this lesson was not learned, Russian socialism would be swept out of existence. This was the great paradox of Lenin’s government – that capitalism was the only way to build communism.
Nearly everyone in the West has come to believe that socialism (or communism) was and is an economic system, as it often pretended to be. Yet, there is no such system. In reality, all economic systems (insofar as they function) are market systems, even if that market is a slave market (as with the gulag labor camp system, or Soviet agriculture after farm collectivization). Therefore, the foundations of the Soviet economy were capitalist. In his “Report to the Eleventh Party Congress” in 1922, Lenin said that communists needed to learn how to trade, and how to be capitalists. This did not mean that Russia’s socialists were disloyal to their socialist ideals. It meant, rather, that the communists had much to learn before they could “build socialism.” According to Lenin, “if we do away with at least this elementary ignorance we shall achieve a tremendous victory.” Contrary to those conservatives and traditionalists who Lenin mocked as “highly educated old fogies,” socialism was not a straightforward thing. You did not simply nationalize or collectivize everything at once. In fact, the road to socialism followed a zigzag path. Mikhail Gorbachev also referred to Lenin’s zigzag approach in his writings. At the end of the Soviet Union Gorbachev told U.S. President George H.W. Bush, “George, I’m glad for your appreciation of me and your cooperation with Russia. But watch out for Russia. They will zig and zag. It won’t be straightforward.”
This was an amusing remark coming from Gorbachev, who famously said that the Leninist road “was not a straight road.” And Russia would, indeed, follow a zigzag course under drunken Boris and Vladimir Putin. What advantages did this zigzag course bring? Zigzagging is a maneuver in which you become a moving target. In terms of political rhetoric, in terms of ideology, how can you hit something that is continually changing into something else? Here is a beautiful way to preserve one’s power and throw one’s enemies off the scent.
Along these lines, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn warned, in 1984, that a false liberalization was coming to the Soviet Union. He correctly predicted, “Political ‘liberalization’ would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968.” Golitsyn predicted that the coming Soviet liberalization would be “spectacular and impressive.” He predicted that, “Formal pronouncement might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed.” Golitsyn added, “The posts of president of the Soviet Union and the first secretary of the party might well be separated. The KGB would be ‘reformed.’ Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government.” But this liberalization, said Golitsyn, “would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the party through its cells and individual members in government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists.”
Having reviewed the history of the Soviet Union we might ask where Russia stands today. Is the Russian Federation a socialist country? To answer this question, we should ask another question. Was Lenin’s Soviet Union, under his New Economic Policy, a socialist country? Economically it was not socialist. Politically, however, it was ruled by socialists. Indeed, we are confused. Is a country led by a monarch a monarchy? Yes. Is a country led by a communist, a communist country? – To this question, we want to say “no,” but our answer could also be “yes.” On paper you can call your economic system anything you please. But if bandits are ruling your country, what is the true name of that system? Politics has primacy over economics for the reason Mao Zedong suggested when he said “Political power flows out of the barrel of a gun.” Ask yourself who had all the guns in Russia when Boris Yeltsin made his curious television announcement in June 1990.
To make sense of the present situation, you must look behind the Great Curtain. You must ask yourself if there are forbidden words like “socialism” and “communism,” and you must ask who decided to stop using those words. The answer, in this situation, is simple: The socialists decided to stop using the word “socialism” and the word “communism” for the sake of their global strategy. This should be perfectly clear.
Bill Clinton’s friend and Tom Hayden’s associate, Derek Shearer, once told me (back in 1981), that the “s” word and the “c” word are perfectly good words. But these words, he said, are frightening to most Americans. So, the socialists and communists must use other words in place of the “s” word and the “c” word, exactly as Boris Yeltsin explained on Soviet television in 1990. Socialists were instructed, from one end of the world to the other, to hide themselves behind slogans of equality and democracy while quietly working to rehabilitate the “s” word and the “c” word (especially after so many millions were murdered by socialism and communism in the twentieth century).
How can they rehabilitate the “s” word and the “c” word? This question is not easy to answer. The power now possessed by socialists, in many governments around the world, allows them a wide range of options. Suffice it to say that crazy schemes are presently being engendered to that end.
In 1981, when I met Derek Shearer on the UC Irvine campus, he wanted to use the phrase “economic democracy” in place of the word “socialism.” Shearer told me, as a communist lecturer did two years later, that electing a “stealth socialist president” was the movement’s best plan for transforming America. “There is nothing wrong with the word socialism,” said Shearer. “It’s a perfectly good word. But Americans don’t like it.” And so, a plan was engendered, as far back as 1981. The idea was to elect socialists who, like Boris Yeltsin in 1990, would refrain from using the word “socialist.” In fact, three stealth socialists have been elected president in the United States: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
Clinton was infamous for traveling to Moscow in December 1969. He also traveled to communist Czechoslovakia in January 1970. Obama, in his turn, was mentored by a Communist Party member named Frank Marshall Davis, suspected by the FBI of being a KGB agent. The third socialist shill to step into the White House was and is Joe Biden, who served as Obama’s vice president. Biden was promoted into the U.S. Senate by the efforts of KGB agent Armand Hammer, who played a role in elevating Bill Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, Jr., into the U.S. Senate.
It can be argued, from these and other bits of evidence, that Shearer’s socialist buddies carried out the plan of taking over the Democratic Party and the United States Government. What enabled their plan, more than anything, was the “fall of the Soviet Union.” Because of that fall, the right stopped worrying about socialist or communist subversion. They stopped using the “s” word and the “c” word because socialism and communism had been “defeated.” There was no reason to “beat a dead horse.”
But was the horse truly dead?
Today, if you use the “c” word as they used it in the 1950s, you are dismissed as a Cold War dinosaur. If you used the “s” word to describe one of America’s stealth socialist presidents, you might not be welcome on mainstream television. Not identifying themselves with the “s” word and the “c” word, socialists and communists have won elections in America. Socialists and communists have used this method to retain control of post-Soviet Russia. Anna Politkovskaya said that Russia’s leaders had “brought back what we had before [i.e., socialism], only now in an even more twisted form….” In America, socialism is triumphing through the Democratic Party.
Socialism is rarely if ever discussed or defined publicly (even though it has become the secret, ruling, ideology of America’s bureaucracy and intelligentsia). When someone attempts to define socialism, the definition is usually limited to economics, or to questions of “fairness.” The same can be said for the word “communism.” Most think communism is an economic system when it is, in reality, a method for concentrating power. In political terms, socialism/communism breaks down the political system’s checks and balances. It spreads corruption on all sides. It creates crises and solutions leading to more crises. It offers hope through sinister changes in the system.
Consider the pet projects of our left-leaning politicians. Obama was always talking about “hope and change.” Now take a closer look. As President of the United States, he played the role of “subversive-in-chief.” He nationalized healthcare. He empowered the bureaucracy. He undermined America’s system of checks and balances by bringing Marxists into the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and CIA. He subverted the presidency with his doctored long-form birth certificate. Obama presented himself as “middle-of-the-road,” yet he was a socialist radical. Edmund Burke warned us about this type of politician in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, where he wrote that the “evils of inconstancy and versatility” were “ten thousand times worse than those of obstinacy and the blindest prejudice….” Burke explained,
we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion; that he should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude. By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on children of their country who are prompt … to hack that aged parent in pieces, and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds, and wild incantations, they may regenerate the paternal constitution, and renovate their father’s life.
Obama did plenty of hacking at the aged parent. He opened America’s wounds at every turn. He chastised his own country for its racism, sexism, and imperialism. He traveled the world on an “apology tour,” speaking in Egypt, Vietnam, and Hiroshima, Japan. Again and again, Obama hacked at his “aged parent,” putting America itself into “the kettle of the magicians.” For all that, Obama would never come out of the closet as a revolutionary subversive.
A few days ago, an otherwise intelligent presenter of Russia-Ukraine War information, made the offhanded comment that the Soviet Union was “far from communist.” This comment will puzzle the uninitiated; but as we shall see, this presenter’s comment is perfectly true – and perfectly misleading. One often hears anticommunists satirized as paranoids who see “communists under the bed.” How ironic, then, that nobody satirizes those who cannot find communism in the old Soviet Union! The subject of communism is so full of contradictions, so rich in logical traps, almost anything you say about communism is true and untrue at the same time. And for all that, communism has disappeared – and yet, it is there.
Let us unwrap this a bit more: Why would a Western Marxist say the Soviet Union was “far from communism”? Perhaps the Western Marxist sees Soviet Marxism as a failed system (a failure he does not want to attribute to the “beautiful theories” of Karl Marx). In the Western Marxist’s mind, what Lenin established in Russia, and what Mao established in China, was not communist. State ownership of the means of production is not communism; rather, it is state capitalism. In 2002, professors Richard Wolff and Stephen Resnick researched the question of Soviet communism. They concluded that the Cold War merely pitted the private capitalism of the West against the state capitalism of the USSR. “The struggle between communism and capitalism never happened,” they explained. “The Soviets did not establish communism.” Of course, this kind of analysis denies that the communist movement led by Moscow was even communist. In other words, the most dedicated and serious communists in all history, who made a revolution in Russia, were not advancing communism. This conclusion is contradictory, of course, and against common sense even as it agrees with Marxist theory. What these academics forgot and perhaps never realized, is that Karl Marx never outlined a workable alternative to capitalism. What Marx proposed was a revolution to overthrow capitalism, and a dictatorship in the name of the workers. Marx’s incomplete economic ideas were rubbish. He realized this midstream and left them unfinished on purpose. When Marx and Engels, as authors of The Communist Manifesto, claimed that a better economic system could be achieved through revolution and dictatorship, they were nominating themselves to be the dictators. It was never about a better world for the workers. Furthermore, to make Marx and Engel’s dictatorship sound benign they introduced absurdities like “the withering away of the state.” The communists in Russia were never going to build a socialist utopia. Communism is not really about a better world. Communism is about power. The thing to understand, if you dare, is that Marx and Engels were political snake oil salesmen.
A 1987 Soviet textbook defined socialism as “the first, lower phase of communism.” This same textbook defined communism as the second and higher phase “in the development of the communist formation.” These definitions of “socialism” and “communism” (respectively) are entirely worthless. In fact, the Soviet economy was never socialist or communist, because a fair and equitable socialist economy exists only in the imagination – like ever-filled purses, fairyland, and magic lamps. Socialist states combine elements of chattel slavery, semi-feudalism, and state organized crime. Yet Communist Officials, during the Cold War, often bragged about “the achievements of developed socialism” in the USSR. The main economic achievement, however, was stagnation and backwardness.
Ludwig von Mises explained it this way: “since socialism is not a possibility every step towards it must harm society.” If you make market transactions illegal while executing investors as speculators, you will have no economic growth, you will have no jobs, and your economy will collapse. However, you will have a police state with an abundant supply of helpless and starving people to exploit. This is what happened to the Soviet economy in 1918, in the months following the Bolshevik coup. Chamberlain’s history of the Russian Revolution records that Russia’s railroad system was in a state of collapse in 1918. Epidemics were then breaking out, and starvation was commonplace. “It is the history of Marxian Socialism which shows most clearly that every socialist policy must turn into destructionism,” wrote Mises. And that includes National Socialist policies as well. Mises explained, “The fight between Marxists and the parties calling themselves emphatically anti-Marxist is carried on by both sides with such violence of expression that one might easily be led into supposing them irreconcilable. But this is by no means the case.” As Mises saw with the National Socialists of his day, and we see with the Alt-Right today, “Both parties, Marxism and National Socialism, agree in opposing Liberalism and rejecting the capitalist social order. Both desire a socialist order of society…. While the Marxists hold the ‘capitalists’ responsible for every evil, the National Socialists think to express themselves more concretely by shouting ‘Death to the Jews’ (Juda verrecke).
Socialism is a political religion for the democratic age, where the masses are mobilized against targeted minorities (i.e., the rich, the “insiders,” the “banksters,” the Jews, etc.). “The man who clings to Socialism will continue to ascribe all the world’s evil to private property and to expect salvation from Socialism,” wrote Mises. And now, today, at long last, this demonization of capitalism has made its appearance on the American right – under the guise of “conspiracy theory.” The question should be asked: Who are the conspirators in the many conspiracy narratives? Wealthy capitalists, big business, Wall Street, or the Jews, etc.
As Mises explained, “From the socialist point of view, Capitalism alone is responsible for all the misery the world has had to endure in recent years. Socialists see only what they want to see and are blind to anything that might contradict their theory.” The philosophy of freedom, which attends the free market, is cool and well-balanced, said Mises, who added, “Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.”
Socialism involves a demagogic manipulation of the masses. It is all about mobilizing the mob, stirring up primitive urges. There is no “socialist” economy in fact, only capitalist forms of economy. Thus, socialism is not actually an economic program at all. It is a false promise used to grab political power. This is how you recognize socialism when its label has been removed. And this is why socialism continues to win political victories. Mises said, “The world inclines to Socialism because the great majority of people want it. They want it because they believe it will guarantee a higher standard of welfare. The loss of this conviction would signify the end of Socialism.”
Look at the man in the White House. See who occupies the Élysée Palace. Look at country after country. Are the socialists in charge, or is everything being run by champions of freedom? If most of our politicians were not pushing socialism, or compromising with socialism, then how might we explain the present crisis? To reiterate the words of Mises, “since socialism is not a possibility every step towards it must harm society.”
Sadly, most of our politicians will not oppose socialism. It is easier for them to ignore or deny socialist subversion. They dare not oppose the secret wishes of the mob. This refusal to call things by their proper names, the refusal to apply the “s” word and the “c” word, damns them for all time. They have shown themselves to be one of two things: either cowardly or incapable. And yet, many of them use words like “equality” and “democracy,” “justice” and “freedom.” Do they know what these words mean? No. They pronounce these words because these words make everyone feel better. This is the extent of their philosophic acumen and statesmanship. It boils down to the demagogy of the false promise, of the “something for nothing.” Each word is a feel-good pill for the masses. Because socialism and communism failed in the Soviet Union, and brought stagnation to other countries, they avoid the “s” word and the “c” word. Yet they are moving toward socialism all the same. And they are disguising this movement behind happy faces and perfectly meaningless slogans.
Of course, in much of Europe the word “socialism” doesn’t have the stigma it has in America. A word that is harder to rehabilitate (even in Europe) is “communism.” We have seen how worthless the Soviet definition of communism was. We have seen the blindness of our academics, who insist that communism is what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels taught in their Communist Manifesto, and what Marx wrote in Das Kapital. What is missed by academics is the intention behind the Marxist canon. What did Marx and Engels want? Did they care about the workers, or were they engaging in self-aggrandizement? Were they altruists who planned to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, or were they seeking power for themselves?
If Marx and Engels were not power-seeking egotists, we might take their words – their “scientific socialism” – at face value (as academics tend to do). But Marx and Engels were egotists. Therefore, one must reassemble Marxist theory by using its own critique against it. If all history hitherto is the history of class warfare, and Marx’s idea was to mobilize the masses to overthrow the ruling class, wasn’t he attempting to establish himself as the master of this new ruling class? Wasn’t Marx’s sophisticated claptrap a self-aggrandizing swindle? Eric Voegelin answered this question by saying that Marx had deliberately defrauded his readers as he set Hegel’s dialectic “on its feet.” Voegelin wrote, “They do not dare outrightly call Marx an intellectual faker…. After all, Marx was not a common swindler….” No, indeed. The case was much worse, said Voegelin, because “Marx was spiritually diseased” insofar as he feared “critical concepts and philosophy in general….” Voegelin wrote, “We shall coin the term ‘logophobia’ for his symptom…. The Marxian spiritual disease … consists in the self-divinization and self-salvation of man; an intramundane logos of human consciousness is substituted for the transcendental logos.” Marx’s antipathy to true philosophy, added Voegelin, “must etiologically be understood as the revolt of immanent consciousness against the spiritual order of the world. This is the core of the Marxian idea.” In other words, Karl Marx was a special kind of supervillain.
Of all the many truths that could be told about Marxist socialism, this is the core truth. The whole Marxist project was about power and the self-aggrandizement of the leader. It was not about building a better socioeconomic system. As Voegelin further noted, “Marx is demonically closed against transcendental reality…. His spiritual impotence leaves no way open but derailment into Gnostic activism. Again we see the characteristic combination of spiritual impotence with mundane lust for power….”
And yet the socialists will never see Marx as a spiritually impotent, power-lusting supervillain. It is worth noting that this is the portrait of Marx drawn by biographer Robert Payne. It is no wonder, indeed, that Marx’s true ambition – for dictatorship – was well-known to his closest associates. It is also interesting that the socialist leader who first achieved Marx’s dream of total power was Lenin, whose career was outlined by Payne in the following passage: “Once Lenin had decided that all means were permissible to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat, with himself ruling in the name of the proletariat, he had committed Russia to intolerable deprivations of human freedom. His power was naked power; his weapon was extermination; his aim the prolongation of his own dictatorship.”
We see, then, that socialism isn’t even a proper idea. It is, in the first instance, the ambition of a man. Socialism’s true object was to transform a power-lusting man into a god. To make Lenin into a god, millions had to be sacrificed. To make Stalin into a god, ditto. And now the process has elevated Putin into a god, and Xi Jinping into a god, and Kim Jong Un into a god, etc. Wherever power is absolute, and wherever it corrupts absolutely, these man-gods appear. It is no accident that Lenin has been, like some Egyptian Pharoah, mummified and on display for nearly one hundred years in his Mausoleum – a Karelian Quartzite pyramid set in Red Square.
Who shall they build a pyramid for next?
With everything that has been written on communism, and all the complexities of communist theory, the phenomenon has an elegant simplicity. During a dinner conversation, 24 years ago, I heard the following exchange between a former British MP and GRU defector Stanislav Lunev: “Churchill said that Russia was a riddle wrapped in an enigma,” said the Britisher. “Oh no,” said Lunev, “Russia is very simple.” The British MP was baffled by this answer. But Lunev was correct. Russia is not a riddle wrapped in an enigma, and neither is communism (despite its many contradictions).
Lunev once told me a secret about Russia’s leaders. He said, “They are not normal people.” He talked of seeing Lenin’s orders to murder women and children, housed in a restricted library in Moscow. “Lenin was a psychopath,” he said. The riddle, wrapped in an enigma, boils down to this. Let us answer it without Churchill’s artful rhetoric or Voegelin’s use of ancient Greek. Marx was an intellectual criminal, and so were his Russian followers. Marx’s followers exploited the Russian masses for their own aggrandizement. After securing Russia, they exploited the stupidity of the West. This was a game of deception and violence, tending toward global destruction. This is what few understand. Psychopaths are always seeking victims. Destruction is, in fact, what excites these disgusting people. Plundering and killing is self-affirming for them. Take a closer look at Putin, Kim, and Xi. Why do they want faster missiles? Why do nuclear weapons make them giddy? Why are they always threatening the West with war? The answer is simple, as Lunev said. These people are animated by dark fantasies. When will we awaken to this simple truth?
Ludwig von Mises warned, long ago, that socialism is destructionism – and he was right. This is why socialist dictators are fixated on making nuclear and biological weapons. Such weapons can mean nothing to a normal person. But for a true socialist – for a transformer (i.e., destroyer) of mankind – such weapons signify redemption by way of extermination. The world prefers to think that Vladimir Putin is an intelligent person; that is to say, a normal person. Therefore, the pundits said that Putin will never invade Ukraine. And the pundits were wrong. Likewise, we need to disregard experts who say that nobody is irrational enough to start a nuclear war. Such statements are rubbish, the people who make them are superficial, and government leaders who predicate policy on such statements are headed for a rude awakening.
Our pundits and experts have understood very little. It’s as if they missed the history of the last hundred years. And yet, these folks supposedly read history. They read and read and yet fail to understand a thing. At this late hour, nearly everyone lies to themselves. On the one side we have the left’s lies (the Soviet Union was never communist), on the other side we have the right’s lies (i.e., Reagan won the Cold War). The truth is entirely lost between the two.
To reiterate our discovery: Socialism is about power, which turns to destruction for destruction’s sake. Such is the Marxist’s path to self-actualization. Understanding this, we can better understand why Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, et. al., said there was no “Marxist dogma.” A rotten theory ultimately gives way to bloody practice. (What else are rotten theories for?) What was valuable about Marxism was the fact it could be modified and adapted to many situations. It could even be applied where the working class was very small, where the working class was conservative, etc. Marxist socialism is only a matter of tailoring a demagogic formula to the people you are mobilizing.
As an aside, Hitler was a socialist innovator who had many things to teach the Marxists, and the Marxists were eager to learn. Indeed, there was method in Hitler’s madness. It is the method of “rightwing socialism.” Thus, Hitler taught Marxists the value of nationalism. He taught Stalin how nationalism could be mobilized on behalf of socialism. And so, in the decades that followed, Western observers have been confused by rising nationalism in Russia and China. They have misinterpreted this phenomenon as foretelling the breakdown of the Marxist paradigm. But that is incorrect. Since the paradigm was always about power, Marxian socialism cannot be harmed by the admission of National Socialist elements (or a red-brown alliance). In fact, there is no profound difference between Marxism and Nazism. Both forms of socialism kill human beings and distort reality. The aim of both is total power. The differences are only superficial. Many readers and thinkers have missed this fact, and therefore missed the essential flexibility of Marxism-Leninism.
In the mind of the Western politician, communism is the ideology of certain political parties (i.e., communist parties) that hypocritically failed to follow their own principles. In other words, Western politicians have adopted the view that communists are as cynical about their ideals as Westerners are about democracy, Christianity, and capitalism. This blanket cynicism, of course, fundamentally misunderstands the communist system and the communist movement. It dismisses communists as hypocrites rather than acknowledging they are psychopaths. By pigeonholing them as mere kleptocrats, the West subtly refashions them into suitable “economic partners.” Here is an error we have repeated, again and again, in our dealings with communists. Our businessmen and politicians suppose that Russian and Chinese leaders want to make money. Why should they invade neighboring countries or start a world war? Thus, the stupidity of our academics and experts is replicated in our politicians and businessmen.
As cynical practitioners of the “art of the possible,” Western politicians often regard communist leaders as mirror-images of themselves; that is, corrupt but reasonable. Miseducated by academics to believe that Marxism is a fixed ideology, they imagine it is dead letter (like their own ideological formulations). Therefore, we hear it said that the communist leadership in Beijing is not really communist at all. They are pragmatists with a red flag. The mistake is in thinking that communist leaders were “ideological” at all. True evil, on the scale practiced by communists, requires a philosophic understanding that is frankly nihilist and diabolical. The communist leader’s view invariably partakes of Karl Marx’s spiritual illness (as described by Voegelin). This spiritual illness is, in fact, impossible to reckon with if you are a Western politician whose nihilism is relatively less sophisticated and unconscious. On the other hand, if a Western politician is secretly a Marxist himself, he will do everything he can to accelerate the destruction of the West. He will even do this under the banner of free trade.
To destroy an entire society is no simple task. You must know a great deal to engineer a great destruction. While Marxists are cynical, they are not cynical in the way Western politicians are. Leninist thinking is cosmic, grandiose, yet practical. Marxism-Leninism is not dogmatic as everyone has wrongly supposed. Marx and Lenin were sociological. Here, political strategy takes on a more sophisticated aspect.
I once offered these same thoughts on socialism and communism to a religious conservative who objected to my use of the word “communist.” He said that communism was no longer a threat, so I should not refer to communism. He said the Russians and Chinese did not “practice” communism anymore. Weighed down by layers of misunderstanding, he was not impressed with my discourse. “You should not use this word, communism,” he said. “Using it will discredit you. People will think you are a Cold War dinosaur. Besides, it has the stigma of Joseph McCarthy on it.”
If one is to be bullied into giving up the word “communism,” one should not be so weak as to fear the word “dinosaur,” or the label of “McCarthyite.” Point a gun at my head. Threaten to shoot me. But don’t scare me with “dinosaur” or “McCarthyite.” The word “dinosaur” is a metaphor referring to an extinct animal. Let us see whose arguments and understandings are extinct after another thirty years, after another three hundred years. In fact, the issue can be cleared up, here and now, with a simple question: Ask yourself why anticommunists have been stigmatized as “dinosaurs” and “McCarthyites.” Ask yourself: Who is responsible for stigmatizing them?
Surely, it had to be the communists. According to former communist Louis Budenz, Stalin was the one who originated the campaign against “McCarthyism.” And so the campaign has continued, successfully. Here is how Budenz explained it, in 1966, referring to a speech by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev:
‘Anti-Communism’ and the ‘anti-Soviet campaign’ which followed World War II, as Brezhnev puts it, have been smashed by Moscow’s political warfare. Much greater elbow room in the world scene to carry on ‘wars of national liberation’ has been won for Soviet Russia and Red China by the striking victory within the United States in ‘the battle against McCarthyism.’ So well imbedded has this term ‘McCarthyism’ become in the Western world – or at least among Anglo-Saxons – that Prime Minister Harold Wilson recently on international television commended the late Adlai Stevenson for his culture … as distinguished from ‘McCarthyism.’
As anyone with eyes can see, Senator McCarthy was the one “blacklisted by history.” Since that time, the campaign against anticommunism has never stopped. One might ask why anticommunists continue to be vilified long after the supposed collapse of communism. Why are people glibly throwing the term “McCarthyist” at someone like Diana West? — especially after she wrote a rather matter-of-fact book about communist subversion a decade ago? Her facts and arguments were documented. She was writing from a patriotic perspective. Yet she was attacked by alleged “conservatives” (especially, by David Horowitz and Ron Radosh) who christened her “McCarthy’s heiress.” Of course, it was KGB defector Golitsyn who predicted that a future “controlled” collapse of communism in the Soviet Union would serve to further marginalize anticommunists in the United States. And, strange to say, anticommunists are more marginalized than ever. In fact, anticommunists are now ridiculed as Cold War “dinosaurs.”
Imagine you are an anti-unicorn. Could there be a stigma against you? No, because there are no unicorns to stigmatize you. There are no unicorn front groups, or unicorn agents of influence, to blacklist you. Since unicorns do not exist, nobody in the world cares if you write a scathing book against unicorns. On the other hand, if you write a book exposing communist subversion, even if that subversion happened eighty years ago, you are likely to lose your syndicated column, your income, and more. The takeaway is, unicorns don’t exist but communists do – and they will destroy anyone who threatens them.
By calling me a “dinosaur” and a “McCarthyite,” my religious conservative friend demonstrated his superficiality. He sees communism only as an economic system that has been abandoned. At one point he admitted my arguments were “brilliant.” But he posed the following question: “If communism is a swindle, and communists are criminals, why do you call them communists?” The joke, of course, was on me. The admonition against using the “c” word was so strong in him, and his resistance so great, he had only understood my point that communism was a scam. He did not understand that the scam was still ongoing, that the danger from Russia and China is accelerating. My religious conservative friend is now a fervent supporter of Vladimir Putin. He believes all the Russians lies. He hates Ukraine. He hates America. Only Russia, he says, offers a better way.
When you tell a person there is an ongoing swindle, his receptivity depends on whether he has already bought into that swindle. If I could have gotten my friend to listen, I would have posed the following questions: What exactly is the aforesaid swindle about? COMMUNISM. And who is perpetrating this swindle? COMMUNISTS. My religious conservative friend said, “If you use that word [i.e., communism] nobody will understand what you are talking about.”
From such jackasses I take refuge in a conversation I once had with the famous Russian dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky. I asked him if the West had ever understood communism. He said, “No.” Why did they fail to understand it? “Because it is complicated,” he said, “and they want an easy explanation because they are lazy.” Can you fashion an easy explanation? He said, “No. There is no easy explanation.” In his book on Marxism, Bukovsky explained something that Voegelin had underscored; namely, that Marx was no ordinary “faker.” This is not some bank robbery or kidnapping or murder. No, this is communism. This is spoliation on an undreamt-of scale, with hundreds of millions enslaved and tens of millions murdered. You cannot compare Marx with an ordinary faker, burglar, kidnapper, or murderer.
Every genus has its differentiae. There are many kinds of swindles, but only one socialist or communist swindle. In dangerous matters such as these, our language should be precise. Should we tell our friends to “watch out for the plants” in our yard? Might this leave them puzzled and confused? Wouldn’t it be better to say, “Watch out for the poison ivy on the walkway”? The analogy carries, then, “Watch out for the swindle” is not as good “Watch out for communist subversion.”
But who is “watching out”? There are no communists, say the jackasses.
Yet communists do exist. They are the active members of communist parties or cells. They are under strict party discipline. They carry out tasks. They do not sit on their hands or goof off. In terms of ethics, communist practice is Machiavellian. In terms of organization, it is the world’s largest and best organized political movement. On one level it is a criminal syndicate. On another level it is a bureaucratic machine for destroying mankind. You cannot reason with it. You cannot buy it off. You cannot infiltrate it (because it has already infiltrated everyone else).
Most people imagine that communism is no longer a threat. After all, Reagan won the Cold War. Only he did not win the Cold War. Communists are coming to power all over Africa and Latin America. The Cold War did not end. In fact, it is turning hot. Look at Russia’s armies fighting their way toward NATO, threatening to nuke Brussels and London and Washington. Can you hear the artillery yet? Can you see the gathering storm – in North Korea, in China, in Cuba, in Latin America and Africa? Communism is advancing under false colors. And now we are told that America is out of howitzer shells. Yet, at the same time, we are propagandized to believe that America spends more on defense than all the countries of the world put together. We spend more on defense, but we are out of howitzer shells!
Behind every contradiction is a lie. And lies are never consistent with other lies, or with the truth. So, you take one lie, or one problem based on a lie, and you turn it over. Does America really spend more on defense than China and Russia put together? No. The Pentagon pays bigger salaries, pensions, benefits, than the Chinese. And the Chinese defense budget does not count salaries at all. But the socialists on the left, and the Russian trolls on the right, keep saying that America is the big bad imperialist power. America is trying to take over the world, trying to destroy Russia and China. But now we see, little by little, that it’s a lie. In fact, it’s a lie that goes back to the “s” word and the “c” word. We are not supposed to connect those two words with today’s spiderweb of lies, with America’s open borders, with Russia and China’s nuclear buildup, with the bribetaker in the White House.
Whittaker Chambers was a clandestine member of the Communist Party USA and a spy for Moscow. In 1939 he left the communist movement. He later said he had left the winning side for the losing side. Chambers tried to warn the FBI and the White House. But his warnings went unheeded for almost a decade. He wrote a book, titled Witness. The first part of his book is titled “Letter to My Children.” He said that he owed the world an “accounting.” According to Chambers, there was an ongoing “conflict of faiths” between communism and freedom. His purpose in writing the book was to make clear “the true nature of Communism and the source of its power….” He wrote:
For in this century, within the next decades, will be decided for generations whether mankind is to become Communist, whether the whole world is to become free, or whether, in the struggle, civilization as we know it is to be completely destroyed or completely changed. It is our fate to live upon that turning point in history.
According to Chambers, “The turning point is the next to last step.” He said that the fruit of the First World War was the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Communism. He said that the fruit of the Second World War “was our arrival at the next step of the crisis with the rise of Communism as a World Power.” He said that these fruits “were the only decisive results of the world wars.” Thus, if there is a Third World War, communism will attempt a final victory. Should communism win, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. Imagine mushroom clouds from horizon to horizon. Imagine death and destruction, which is the true meaning of communism.
Chambers said that communism was “man’s second oldest faith. It’s promise,” he wrote, “was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: ‘Ye shall be as gods.’ It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision.” It is, said Chambers, “the vision of Man without God.” It is, added Chambers, “the vision of man’s mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man’s liberated mind, by the sole force of rational intelligence, redirecting man’s destiny and reorganizing man’s life and the world.” This vision is a challenge, said Chambers, “and it implies a threat.” That threat is the program of the communist movement, a program that follows a simple plan: Take over everything, take charge of mankind, and become God. “It is an intensely practical vision,” warned Chambers. “The tools to turn it into reality are at hand – science and technology, whose traditional method, the rigorous exclusion of all supernatural factors in solving problems, has contributed to the intellectual climate in which the vision flourishes….”
The words of Whittaker Chambers went unheeded. His foremost political champions forgot his teaching. Richard Nixon, who had championed Chambers in Congress, went on to the Presidency – to shake hands and open relations with the Chinese communist mass murderer Mao Zedong. Worse yet, William F. Buckley, who supposedly admired Chambers, accepted a false crown of glory when the Cold War was “won.” It appears, in retrospect, that many of our leading conservatives did not believe what they professed. And so, they also signed on as Beijing’s partners, as Moscow’s partners, as the “loyal opposition” to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. After this fashion, conservatism fell away. Anticommunism disappeared. As I wrote in the first draft of my Origins of the Fourth World War, thirty-six years ago, “The Right is a fiction. Everyone is on the Left.”
Chambers asked why men turned to the left and to communism. Was it stupidity? No, said Chambers, “I was not stupid.” Is it a case of moral depravity? Chambers did not answer this question directly, saying only that “Communism makes some profound appeal to the human mind.” We will never understand it by calling it depraved. Invective and name-calling do not partake of understanding. To understand it, he said, we best understand what it is not. Here is another object lesson: “It is not simply a vicious plot hatched by wicked men in a sub-cellar. It is not just the writings of Marx and Lenin, dialectical materialism, the Politburo, the labor theory of value, the theory of the general strike, the Red Army, secret police, labor camps, underground conspiracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the technique of coup d’etat.”
Do you see how profound the mistake was, in 1991, when our self-congratulating conservatives – men who counted themselves as Chambers’s acolytes – embraced the “collapse of communism” as the disappearance of those things “we best understand … it is not”? Here was a rottenness at the heart of so-called anticommunism. Here was a profound self-misunderstanding. Without the passion of McCarthy, without the wisdom of Chambers, without the insight of Richard Weaver, who were these people?
Through all eternity, you must never forget who your enemy is. You must never believe that your enemy has changed into a friend for no reason. You must never flatter yourself that you won a Cold War after losing Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Congo, Nepal, etc. How could we have lost so many battles and won the war?
Count the uranium mines in communist hands. Count the gold mines, the strategic metals lost to the enemy. Count the strategic ports in Chinese hands today, and the airfields they have constructed to cover them – along the Cape Sea Route, in Panama at both ends of the Canal, in Mexico and the Caribbean. Russia gave up a few countries in Europe for two continents. Look, now, who is flipping to the socialist camp. India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil. Afghanistan is their ally even as Turkey rides the fence. The socialist camp has encircled America. Meanwhile, socialists have infested the top tiers of America’s Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA. Evidence has emerged that the Attorney General of the United States and the President are socialist criminals. Yet these criminals will not be arrested because socialism dominates our institutions – in Washington, in Hollywood, and in our major universities. Forget about Moscow’s setbacks in Ukraine. Such setbacks are nothing compared to their victory here, in the United States.
Gustave Le Bon was a French scientist who wrote extensively on crowd psychology. He left behind a number of important works, being the first writer to thoroughly investigate the psychology of socialism. For a long time, noted Le Bon, psychologists regarded belief as voluntary and rational….” But a shocking discovery was made. Psychologists discovered that mass belief is an unconscious process, “under the influence of mystical and affective elements independent of reason and will….” We do not fully understand why people believe irrational things, noted Le Bon, but they do.”
According to Le Bon, the decisive role of the unconscious means that the decisive factors in belief are: “prestige, affirmation, repetition, suggestion and contagion.” These factors sway the mind independent of reason. “The power of these influences on the genesis of beliefs” is “proved by their effects on the actions of even the most cultivated men,” noted Le Bon. Man is not so much the “rational animal” as he is a “rationalizing animal” whose irrationality is supported by seemingly logical arguments. Le Bon wrote, “We have arrived thus at this important philosophical law: Far from presenting a common intellectual origin, our concepts have very different mental sources and are ruled by very different forms of logic. From the predominance of each … are born the great happenings of history.”
While Le Bon associated freedom with democracy, he associated socialism with slavery. Writing before the Bolshevik’s took power in Russia, Le Bon knew that socialism would lead to tyranny. “This conflict between the democratic idea and the aspirations of the socialists is … invisible to superficial minds,” he wrote. “Democracy has indirectly given rise to socialism, and by socialism, perhaps, it will perish.”
Le Bon described socialism as a fanatical faith. It seeks “the destruction of the present society, and its reconstruction on other bases. To the disciples of the new dogmas, nothing appears more simple….” One might ask if the socialists can build anything on the ruins of the old society. Le Bon said, “No.” Socialism can only destroy. “No society,” Le Bon explained, “is firmly held together unless [its] … moral heritage is solidly established, and established not in codes but in the natures of men; the one declines when the other crumbles, and when this moral heritage is finally disintegrated, the society is doomed to disappear….”
Socialism might easily destroy civilization, he warned. In fact, destruction was its actuating principle. Destruction was necessary for the grand “starting over” that Marx and Engels had imagined. It makes the job of leveling easier. The great power of socialist belief, noted Le Bon, is in the fact that its propagation is independent of truth or error; and whatever destruction it causes, can be blamed on its victims. Once it lodges in the minds of men, “its absurdity no longer appears: reason cannot reach it, and only time can impair it.”[v] Le Bon explained:
Socialism, whose dream is to substitute itself for the ancient faiths, proposes only a very low ideal, and to establish it appeals to sentiments lower still…. With the sentiments of envy and hatred which it creates in the hearts of the multitudes. To the crowd, no longer satisfied with political and civic equality, it proposes equality of condition, without dreaming that social inequalities are born of those natural inequalities that man has always been powerless to change.
Le Bon anticipated the fact that socialism would not, in the end, appeal to working men (i.e., to the proletariat). The working man, said Le Bon, “is strongly attached to the old order of things; he is extremely arbitrary, a thorough conservative, a firm believer in authority.” While the working man can always join a revolution, he does so with the expectation of future stability. Thus, Le Bon anticipated that socialism would have to mobilize people who are not of the working class. In 1899 he wrote, “Socialistic tendencies today are far more prevalent among the middle class than among the populace. They spread by simple contagion and with remarkable rapidity. Philosophers, men of letters and artists follow the movement with docility and contribute actively to spreading it.”
Thus, we discover that socialism during the last 130 years, like Christianity in the fourth century, is a phenomenon of the middle class, of the urban bourgeoisie – and not of the workers. With the advance of socialism, we do not find blue states versus red states as much as we find blue urban areas versus red rural and small-town areas. This was exactly the situation in antiquity, where those resisting Christianity were called “pagans,” meaning “ignorant country dwellers.” Using almost the same exact parlance, modern socialists dismiss adherents of the old religion as “rednecks” who live in “flyover country.”
We should pay attention to patterns in history. The Roman Empire’s destruction was preceded by the success of a New Religion (i.e., Christianity) inimical to Rome’s polytheistic heritage. Now America’s destruction is foreshadowed by the appearance of a New Religion called “socialism.” There are signs that a cycle of destruction is about to recur. When the Roman Empire fell, millions perished with it. In one lifetime, the Eternal City (i.e., Rome) went from 800,000 inhabitants to 40,000 inhabitants. The survivors took to grazing sheep in the Forum. As our civilization is much greater than Rome, our fall would be far more terrible.
Historians might be inclined to blame our fall on irrelevant factors, as many have done in the case of Rome. So let us be clear. The chief cause of our decline and fall will be socialism — even as Edward Gibbon pointed to Christianity as a primary cause of Rome’s decline and fall. You cannot change the religion of a society as if you are changing someone’s underwear. Civilization is an outward manifestation of a spiritual constitution. Change those spiritual beliefs and you undermine the foundations of civilization. Nothing is then fit to stand.
Should this destruction play out, what might we say about the new civilization emerging from the rubble? While Christianity gave birth to a superior civilization after the fall of Rome, we should not expect socialism to produce anything. Socialism is nihilistic, incapable, and empty. It is based, as Le Bon said, on envy and hate. Therefore, socialism’s victory would be nothing more than effective leveling, as Nietzsche argued. The history of communism has already revealed, in The Black Book of Communism and the Gulag Archipelago, a socialist predilection for mass murder.
Is there any prospect the West will change course and defend itself from socialism? In 1899 Le Bon wrote: “Considering the complacence with which the upper classes today are allowing themselves to be progressively disarmed, the historian of the future will feel only contempt for their lamentable want of foresight….” In light of this warning, insofar as nothing has changed, those who believe in an elite conspiracy are going to be disappointed. The elite do not know what they are doing. They are, as Le Bon noted, “progressively disarmed.” In fact, the spread of conspiracy ideology testifies to their disarmament. The elite imagine that money-making is everything. This has resulted in a shopping mall regime that is, in the end, unlikely to defend itself. In truth, the money-making classes do not have the intellectual or spiritual orientation required for proper government. They haven’t the backbone to fight foreign enemies or hang traitors. Bending the state to the economy, making man into a homo economicus, they undermine the defensive function of the state even as they undermine the spiritualizing function of the churches (which have declined into the Jesus business). The core socialist contingent cannot be bought off with money or leveraged with religion. Our billionaires are too narrow in their focus, too distracted by their enterprises, to form the needed defensive strata.
The engine of socialist revolution, said Le Bon, depends on what he called the demi-savants or “half-scholars”; “those who have no other knowledge than that contained in books, and who consequently know absolutely nothing about the realities of life….” It is from this throng of demi-savants, said Le Bon, “that the most dangerous disciples of socialism are recruited, and even the worst anarchists….” These enemies of normal society are the most corrosive of human beings. Yet the middle class, the business class, assists the demi-savants, said Le Bon, “by their indifference, their egotism, their feeble will and their absence of initiative or political perception….” Le Bon wrote,
The modern bourgeoisie are no longer sure of their rights. Or rather they are not sure of anything, and they do not know how to defend anything. They listen to everything and tremble before the most pitiable windbags. They are incapable of firm will and the severe discipline, of the community of hereditary sentiments, which are the cement of society and without which no human association has hitherto been able to exist….
Here Le Bon is pointing to what other social thinkers have noted (e.g., Jacob Burckhardt, Nietzsche, Joseph Schumpeter, Vilfredo Pareto, etc.). Human society is best when led by its natural defenders; that is, people of noble character as opposed to grifters and demagogues. The question is how to cultivate, encourage, and elevate such people. The senators of the Roman Republic were called “conscript fathers.” They cared for their country as a father for a child. Such leadership is not about filling stores with consumer goods, or trading with the Red Chinese. It is based on leading by example and acting honorably. Such an ethic always animates society’s natural defenders. About this, Le Bon wrote,
Thus perished many civilizations of the past, when their natural defenders gave up struggle and effort. The ruin of nations has never been effected by the lowering of their intelligence, but by the lowering of their characters. Thus ended Athens and Rome; thus ended Byzantium, the heir of the civilizations of antiquity….
Above all, socialism is dangerous because it destroys and undermines character. It is an attack on human nature itself. To be commanded, human nature must be understood and, in part, sympathized with. Like the work of a parent, the work of society’s true defender is not about self-aggrandizement (as exemplified by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels). It is not about manipulating or tyrannizing others. It is the art of commanding through self-control, self-limitation, and courage. The socialist is the opposite of society’s true defender, however benevolent he imagines himself to be; for his creed is based on low ideals and even lower sentiments.
Read J.R. Nyquist’s books on Amazon.com
Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)
Links And Notes
 V.I. Lenin, Lenin’s Final Fight: Speeches and Writings, 1922-23 (New York: Pathfider, 1996), p. 28.
 Ibid, p. 29.
 Ibid, p. 35.
 Ibid, p. 37.
 Ibid, p. 30.
 Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p, 339.
 Ibid, pp. 339-40.
 It is possible that the socialists are looking to change mankind’s view of its place in the universe. A method once favored by Stalin involves faking an extraterrestrial contact event. Coincidentally, since the rise of the Soviet Union, stories of space aliens have been injected into popular culture on a continual basis. In this way the public has been primed to believe in a post-Christian, post-capitalist “s”-word-enhancing alien contact narrative. Such a narrative may be used to “unify the planet” and discredit the Pentagon. This sort of thing could lead us away from national thinking into global thinking. At the same time, alien contact narratives invariably paint America’s defense contractors as malefactors. If this kind of active measure succeeds, and contracting is discredited in the U.S., who will engage in it? This narrative will also have a far-reaching economic and political aspect. It will discredit capitalism by alleging that economic scarcity is a lie, that free energy through advanced alien technology has been suppressed by a greedy capitalist elite.
 Edward Jay Epstein, Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1996), p. 166, 303. In 1950, Hammer made Congressman Al Gore, Sr. a partner in a cattle-breeding business that enriched the future senator who was father to Clinton’s vice president of the same name. In later years, Gore, Sr. passed his senate seat to his son, then headed Occidental’s coal division, owned by Hammer. This earned Gore $500,000 per year. Epstein wrote: “The FBI had information that Hammer had acted as a Soviet agent. He had allegedly laundered funs for the Communist underground and helped establish Soviet espionage agents in America.” See p. 167.https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/arpaio-investigation-proves-obama-birth-certificate-a-fake/article_f171a23a-63f1-11e1-b5a2-001871e3ce6c.html. I have spoken to the Cold Case Posse lead investigator on this case, Mike Zullo. There is a great deal that has not been published and a mystery that is yet to be solved. There was also an effort, following their investigation, to destroy Sheriff Arpaio and Detective Zullo – an effort to land them in prison. It appears, indeed, that Barack Obama was and is a fictional person. This fictional status, together with his socialist ideology, should have prevented him from taking the oath of office. Yet, the checks and balances of the Republic failed. According to Zullo, there were inconsistencies in the electronic copy long-form birth certificate of the President of the United States. I asked Zullo where he thought Obama was born. Zullo answered, “I have no idea. He is a ghost.” Zullo did intensive checking in Hawaii only to discover the two hospitals in question had no record of Obama’s birth. The record that ultimately emerged, therefore, had to be a forgery. Regarding the Honolulu newspaper that carried a birth announcement at the time, Zullo said such an announcement proves nothing because the newspaper accepted such messages without requiring proof that the birth had taken place. It has also been been verified by public record that Obama’s alleged parents never lived under the same roof as man and wife. https://www.umass.edu/pubaffs/chronicle/archives/02/10-11/economics.html
 Karl Marx’s partner, Friedrich Engels wrote, in Part 3, Chapter 2 of Anti-Dϋrhring: “The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the process of production. The state is not ‘abolished,’ it withers away.” Engels attributed this idea to Marx. Lenin support the idea in The State and Revolution. Under Stalin occasional lip service was paid to the idea.
 KH. Sabirov, What is Communism? (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 294.
 Ludwig Von Mises translated by J. Kahane, Socialism (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1979), p. 450.
 Ibid, p. 451.
 Ibid, p. 459.
 Ibid, p. 460.
 Ibid, p. 462.
 As quoted by Ellis Sandoz, The Voegelinian Revolution: A Biographical Introduction, Second Edition (New York: Routledge, 2017), p. 27.
 Ibid, p. 27-28.
 Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Lenin (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1964), p. 631.
 Louis Budenz, The Bolshevik Invasion of the West (USA: The Bookmailer, 1966), p. 129.
Ibid, p. 186.
 Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p. 346.
 Whittaker Chamber, Witness (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 50th Anniversary Edition), pp. 4-7.
Ibid, p. 7.
Ibid, p. 9.
Ibid, p .10.
Ibid, p. 8.
 Especially, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Robert D. Novak, who both had the temerity to write a tribute attached to the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition of Chambers’s book a decade after the supposed fall of the Soviet Union. Buckley had, by then, attacked KGB defector Golitsyn and the former chief of the CIA’s counterintelligence staff, James Angleton, as false prophets. This was strange turnabout indeed.
 Translated by Alice Widener, Gustave Le Bon: The Man and His Works (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1979), p.225.
Ibid, p. 226.
Ibid, pp. 126-127.
Ibid, pp. 107-108.
Ibid, p. 108.
Ibid, p. 120.
Ibid, p. 121.
Ibid, p. 122.
Ibid, p. 124.
Ibid, p. 142.