The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmenov

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
The following is the list of Communist goals contained in The Naked Communist, which was published in 1958:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. Skousen claimed that an American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." Skousen claimed Communists sought to encourage the practice of masturbation.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

A WARNING FOR AMERICA FROM SOUTH AFRICA

by Alan Stang
November 6, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

I read this warning on my daily radio talk show last week, before the election. It is even more relevant now, because the same thing that was imposed on South Africa – by the United States – is now happening here. So many people have asked for a copy of this message from a South African journalist that I post it here. My comments on her comments are in bold. Of course the parallels cannot be exact, but see whether you recognize any of this.

By Gemma Meyer (Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)

People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).

Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.

America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.

Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you've created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.

But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.

That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.

South Africa used to be one of the most advanced nations on earth. Then Washington intervened.

Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace."

Mandela was in jail for twenty seven years not because he was an innocent black man but because he was a Communist terrorist who said in court that he was planning to kill people with bombs. He could have been released at any time simply by renouncing terrorism. He refused.

Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.

The Third World is different - different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.

Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.

Again, Washington forced Rhodesia into Communist hands. Rhodesia exported tons of food. Zimbabwe typically starves. Washington did this.

It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe "compassionate conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.

White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.

South Africans voted for their own suicide. Did you?

We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of "oppression" and "racism," and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the "equality of man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World's history.

See my recent piece – Before the Election: What You Must Do – about the deliberate cultivation of white guilt in the Communist government schools.

The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's mission-school protégés. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."

Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.

From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.

A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel.

In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society's laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white man's justice"? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.

What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white "racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?

Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.

In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing - invasions of private land by the "have-nots;" the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.

In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.

What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?

Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.

Don't imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be found to exonerate the guilty.

In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.

When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.

Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and don't pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans' services, are simply abandoned.

What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.

Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.

Please note. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. Whatever you do later, however hard you fight, you cannot get it back.

Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.

To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.

Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your possessions, your power, and your status.

And they already know that their allies among you, the "human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will.

They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well.

They know what to do.

Do you?

Source

1984 Predictions by Yuri Bezmenov - This interview was conducted by G. Edward Griffin in 1984. Source: Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press - 1984.
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

psst..the USSR is no more
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

it would be really nice if the OP actually used the words of others to spark some of his own assertions rather than just regurgitating some nonsense about commies and brown(er) people (watch out, winky!), er, i mean, those of non-western character (whatever the hell that means) taking over.

next time, bring a shovel.
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

Nope..it was the bogeyman in the day.
Now it's 'Terrorists' and "Socialists'.
It was a nation representative of an ideology. The nation may be gone, the ideological beliefs slither on.

You can expect the ideological battle to continue against the boogyman. We beat the USSR and we will beat you too my friend. :p
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

South Africa brought on it's own extremism. By openly and aggressively oppressing the black population and denying any hope of equality of political representation they caused the collapse of their system.

America is nothing like South Africa and never will be. I don't know what "ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America" that "Gemma Meyer" is referring to. I do not feel "intimidation through accusations of racism" and I have not seen nor heard any "demands for proportionality based on racial numbers." I think "Gemma Meyer" might have sucked too hard on the crack pipe. :retard:
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

There is a growing movement of the conservative and libertarian Republicans whose base and locomotive force is driven – and held hostage – by the Tea Party phenomenon. Firstly, this is technically, indeed, truly a “movement,” per se. Secondly, make no mistake about it, it is not at all revolutionary or progressive, but, on the contrary, is reactionary (it is backward, obsolete, and irrelevant). Thirdly, it is not at all unique and original – historically speaking, but is historically repetitive (which is partly why it is reactionary, that is to say, in opposition to history and progress, by going back to untenable solutions to problems of the past).

President Obama – and his opposition, in many ways, is historically similar to both historical epochs…those of Abraham Lincoln and Franklyn Delano Roosevelt. Both of the latter presidents arose to the call of great historically necessary challenges caused, in part, by their predecessors (or their reactionary inadequacies), culminating in a bitter struggle and ensuing opposition. The former president was embroiled in a period of a profound economic and moral struggle between that of a dying, archaic plantation system versus that of a newly rising system of industrial capitalism. The plantation system of the South was dependent upon (and reflective of) a traditionally privileged elite, a land-propertied aristocracy dependent upon slave labor, while capitalism is and was dependent upon a wider market of “free labor.” Since the formation of the nation, reflected in Thomas Jefferson’s original (yet, altered version of the) “Declaration of Independence,” there was a battle over slavery. Hence, Lincoln found himself immersed in the long-term moral, social, political, legal, and – more importantly, many would say – economic confrontation of freemen/free labor vs. chattel slavery/slave labor, while FDR faced the Great Depression, where the reality and impossibility of laissez-faire capitalism continuing without an unprecedented regulation and massive state interference via social programs (protection in order to prevent total collapse and mass starvation) came to fruition and were deemed necessary in the aftermath of unregulated capitalism under the Hoover administration.

Even though most historians and economists would agree that FDR saved the nation – making him the most beloved and popular president in the history of the U.S., winning an unprecedented third electoral victory – he had a strong and powerful opposition…the ruling class. Big business hated FDR regulating, “meddling” with their unlimited and unbridled wealth and power, based upon the super-exploitation of labor. “Big government” and “regulation” were the enemies of Big Business. The well known names of J.P. Morgan and DuPont, along with other, lesser known names, such as Prescott Bush (the father of President George Herbert Walker Bush, and the grandfather of George W. Bush) – and the leading organizations of the opposition, the American Liberty League and the American Legion (with William Doyle at the head), led a conspiracy to overthrow the government via a violent military coup, along with plans to assassinate Roosevelt. This did not come to fruition, however, due to General Smedley Butler backing out of the conspiracy of the military coup. Big business (content with Herbert Hoover’s “pull yourself up by the bootstrap” individual independence ideology) did not at all like Roosevelt’s Economic Recovery Act; the “New Deal,” the Social Security Act, taking the U.S. off of the gold standard, etc. These measures, however, truly saved the nation from total collapse and disaster, especially the majority, the masses, the working class of America. FDR’s actions were nothing more or less than desperate attempts at solving the contradictions of capitalism, from over-speculation and greed per se to mass unemployment. The Obama administration is this history repeating itself, but it is also that of Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War era, reliving the battle cries of the Confederacy, with general bigotry and racism in full bloom within the Tea Party Movement.

Similar to FDR, Abraham Lincoln was also perceived as a savior to working people, especially southern Blacks who were brutally exploited slaves. Lincoln’s opposition and eventual assassination reflected a divided nation with a seemingly unified confederacy with emotional battle cries of “secession,” “nullification,” and “state’s rights,” immediately following Lincoln’s election in 1860. This is type of opposition, complete with slogans and epithets shouted out at politicians in agreement with Obama, is carried on today (or ought I say, “is rearing its ugly head,” and resurfacing, once again) within the Tea Party Movement.

So, I submit to the reader, President Obama, actually a Black moderate liberal from the land of Lincoln (the first American Black president), who found himself elected within the next period of a fundamental economic crisis (a second Great Depression, only to be rivaled by the original) – brought on by unbridled greed and de-regulation – had to regulate and predictably bring on the wrath of libertarians and pro-Confederate bigots. His opposition, grounded in the growing Tea Party movement, originally (growing out of the historical Reagan “Ignorantsia” – as opposed to the Intelligentsia ) of “Birthers” who doubted Obama’s American birth certificate and accused him of being a Muslim, which – even if it were true, I believe, is still legal in America, began (as with Lincoln) immediately following his election, and was consistently and comprehensively peppered with racism, death threats, Confederate flags, and battle slogans. “Secession,” “nullification,” “state’s rights,” “keep the government out of my health care,” etc. shout the Tea Partiers. Southerners sought to nullify Lincoln’s election, as “Birthers,” likewise, sought to nullify Obama’s election. Furthermore, as with the opposition to FDR, deceptively false and accusative slogans of “government-run” and “socialism” have constantly plagued Obama, not just by Tea Partiers, but reflecting the entire Republican Party and its elected officials and pundits. The enemy, for Tea Partiers, is not “Big Business,” but “Big Government.” As with FDR, Obama’s regulation (enabling the credit, and thus, capitalist economic system to function at all, in addition to saving over thirty million people who had no health care), was hardly socialism, but, on the contrary, a capitalist solution to a capitalist problem (brought on by the de-regulation of Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush). At the time, socialists and communists were divided between praising FDR for saving the nation and/or condemning him for saving a broken capitalist system from its immediate demise and preventing communism from its immediate inevitability.

Karl Marx referred to this last stage of—state interference with—capitalism as “state monopoly capitalism,” a capitalism that has run its predictable and inevitable course from its earlier stages of “competitive capitalism” and “monopoly capitalism.” State monopoly capitalism is a stage that requires state control, regulation, and protection of both the ruling class monopolies and the majority of people. So, as with FDR, Obama is hardly a socialist.

What little known/startling facts about the Civil War fit in with the present thesis? From where did most of the leading (and more philosophical, which is to say, intelligent) Civil War historians get their analysis? The leading newspaper circulation at the time of the Civil War was the New York Daily Tribune. A major contributing news correspondent in the U.S. at that time was none other than Karl Marx. His brilliant and meticulous attention to detail reflected in his news analysis. The leading turn-of-the-century Civil War historian, Charles Beard (1927), as well as, later, Arthur Cole (1934), and then, even later, the esteemed team of Carl and Edith Becker, were greatly influenced by Marx and his analysis, as is the most prestigious contemporary (post-Civil War) Reconstruction historian, Erich Foner (1984). Beyond and besides his so-called (an overly-exaggerated) “economic interpretation of history,” Marx’s analysis (overshadowed by his historical materialism and theory of class struggle) reveals a great deal of profound facts and illusory notions, as they unfolded in the history of the Civil War era. It would do us well to take heed of Marx’s news analysis of this period, as it developed dialectically, for it further increases our insight into the fallacious veil of opposition endemic to both Lincoln and Obama.

It is this writer’s assessment that the greatest philosopher before Marx was G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel had commented on how history repeats itself. Marx added, “The first time as tragedy, the second as farce.” This, I believe, is how I would describe and sum up the opposition to Obama. Marx saw the Civil War as “the Second American Revolution,” not from the standpoint of the Confederacy, but that of Lincoln and the Union. The Union, that is, the United States represented both an economic and ethical position of progress, albeit one of capitalist freedoms. The Confederate South, on the contrary, represented the counter-revolution. In addition, Marx poignantly demonstrated how “the South” was really never “autonomous,” amounting to little more than “a battle slogan,” being “against the will of the people,” since there was hardly any democratic majority vote, beginning with the issue of “secession” from the Union as well as a matter of “forcing slavery against the will of the settlers” – e.g., in Kansas, Missouri, and Kentucky, and most certainly pertaining to any attempt at “nullification” regarding Lincoln’s duly elected, democratic victory by a majority. At first – and ironically, only South Carolina reflected an honest majority vote to secede from the Union, and then, Texas later joined in. Almost half of the population of Georgia were slaves! Marx, reflecting upon the South as a political-economic system, referred to the southern plantation system as an outmoded economy based entirely upon slave labor and landed property…and an “oligarchy of 300,000.” In a letter to Engels, Marx described the entire process, state-by-state, of how undemocratic practices and “terrorism” by minorities brought about secession from the Union, adding, “…incorrectly reported in the English papers. With the exception of South Carolina, there was everywhere the strongest opposition to secession.” A real popular vote only occurred in a handful of states; e.g. in Kentucky, only a few thousand voted for secession, whereas 100,000 voted for the Union ticket. And in Tennessee, a little over twice as many people voted for secession (104,913 for, 47,238 against).

There are no obvious intellectual leaders of the Tea Party Movement…why?...primarily because it is not based at all on truth, facts, intelligence, knowledge, education, history, logic, philosophy, critical thinking, etc. In this respect it is not just “the Party of No,” nor the self-described party of “hell no,” but much like the “Know-Nothing Party.” The movement and its leaders are riddled with contradictions. The most celebrated leading speaker for/at the Tea Party functions (that is, most demonstrations and talks) is Sarah Palin, a woman who claimed that she would rather cling to her guns and religion and go fishing and hunting. Statements by these Tea Partiers are reminiscent of the Nazi, Goering, who said “every time I hear the word culture, I want to reach for my gun” (as opposed to Woody Allen, who said “every time I hear the word gun, I reach for my culture”). For the apparent leaders of the movement, such as Sarah Palin (“don’t retreat, reload”) and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, there is much of this violent call-to-arms and anti-intellectualism (not just non-intellectual pride). Another head of the Tea Party (and “Secessionist”) Movement is Rick Perry, governor of Texas. Another, yet more intelligent Tea Partier is successfully opposing Senator McCain in Arizona, but ironically, was a “no show” at Tea Party events (as was the recent Tea Partier who won in Massachusetts…and also a “no show” at the ultimate Tea Party demonstration in Boston on tax day!). These Tea Party leaders like Palin and Perry actually boast and pride themselves on not really knowing much….about history, politics, being intellectual, “too deep.” For many of the leaders in the movement, like Perry, Palin, Bachmann, etc., they do not know much and do not want to know much; they do not care to know, and are woefully under-educated individuals. Again, that is precisely what is at the root of this form of populism. It is the new “Ignorantsia.” They condemn public education as a failure, and then de-value education per se, “education-for-education sake.” Only the “3Rs,” along with technology and a strictly vocational preparation (and even that, only in the private sector) is valued, not just by Tea Partiers, but by almost all conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans in general. I believe that many Republicans want to jump on the bandwagon of Tea Party popularity, yet stayed back at a distance (as “no shows” at T.P events) since it did not seem to be a very legitimate movement. However, in the recent evolutionary build-up to tax day, the movement has grown significantly while, at the same time, it has shed some of its obvious racist bigotry and talk of violence. Hence, it does seem to be in the process of legitimization (even though, at the tax day rally, Tea Party speaker Bob Marshall, Republican from Virginia, amped-up the violent rhetoric, once again).

Moreover, at the same time, the Tea Party Movement has also erroneously invoked the name of Thomas Jefferson on many occasions. They selectively and/or ignorantly eliminate the basics for which he stood, including a good, well-rounded, and free public education; against total freedom of trade, e.g., the necessary right of government to interfere with property rights at times, an anti-monopolist and pro-worker stand; his opposition to war, favoring and enacting the embargo against England; his unpopular anti-British/pro-French support in America for his friends, the most radical Leftists of the French Revolution, Robespierre and the Jacobins; his unswerving freedom of as well as freedom from religion, protecting the rights of atheists and others; and many other crucial points in total opposition to the Tea Party Movement. Their lack of education is woeful and their contradictions are many: they like their Medicare and Social Security, but hate anything “government run;” they hate the government (“bailing out”) interfering with the banking industry, but desperately love capitalism and the interest-bearing capital of lending and borrowing that it is based on (in order to buy and sell their cars and homes); they hate taxes and Obama’s tax plan, yet it is the lowest it has been in a long time (lower than taxes under Republican presidents, especially for the middle class), not to mention one of the lowest tax rates in the world…in the capitalist world; they are confused and selectively choose and actually invent what is constitutional and what is not – e.g., the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and concerning the legality of the federal income tax, Article I, Section 8. (1) of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”); and, thus, the new Tea Party Movement has very little to do with the original Boston Tea Party – the latter reflected a tax imposed by England, causing the slogan, “no taxation without representation,” while, in reality, our federal tax/es reflect the votes by our duly elected representatives in Congress.

Similarly, much too much misinformation surrounds all of the American presidents mentioned thus far. For that matter, the same, of course, can be said about Karl Marx himself. Although economics and the historical progress of economic systems were quintessential to his analysis and theories, so was social justice, and progressive reforms – whether or not they led to or fomented revolutions. This is why Lincoln was Marx’s friend and why Marx supported him, wholeheartedly. This is also why Lincoln thanked Marx for all of his support. This is also why Marx’s American friend, Joseph Weydemeyer, helped Lincoln get elected and re-elected, and fought as a colonel in Lincoln’s army against the Confederacy. The correspondence between Marx and Lincoln (via Ambassador Charles Francis Adams) is particularly interesting, both relentlessly seeking freedom and the liberation of all workers, with a premium on and prerequisite of freeing Blacks. It is a boldface lie that Lincoln didn’t care or wasn’t that interested in freeing the slaves. As Marx points out, Lincoln’s pre-electoral speeches, especially his “A House Divided Can Not Stand” speech merely emphasizes holding the Union together so as not to alienate Southerners.

History can teach us much, especially a deep, thoughtful history, a critical-philosophical approach, so as not to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Tragedy does become farcical at a point, and it is this writer’s opinion that the Tea Party Movement and the Republicans in general have already surpassed that folly. The real, historical basis for democracy in America began with free public education and the town hall meeting, with freedom of speech –as a process of learning, exchanging rational ideas, not of a mass media TV moment to shout down a speaker, accompanied with fallacious sound bites, and closing down all dialogue (including debate, an intelligent, honest debate of substance). A well rounded education (also called a “liberal education”) is the first prerequisite against the ignorance described in this essay, and the opposition to absolutely necessary measures taken by all three American presidents who rose to the occasion in times of crisis (along with many others), Lincoln, FDR, and Obama.

revisionist history
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

Interesting article... revisionist? You'd have to point those bits out.

Ignore the source for a moment and read the article.
Debate the points being made. It would make for an interesting conversation.
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

Nice that you took time to read that long article, Bish. I stopped after the first sentence. :p
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

Nice that you took time to read that long article, Bish. I stopped after the first sentence. :p

It spanks the Tea Party people as being part of the Ignorati. The author uses too many run-on sentences though.. makes for a hard read.
There are no obvious intellectual leaders of the Tea Party Movement…why?...primarily because it is not based at all on truth, facts, intelligence, knowledge, education, history, logic, philosophy, critical thinking, etc.
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO WERE BORN IN THE
1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's !

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us and lived in houses made of asbestos..
They took aspirin, ate blue cheese, raw egg products, loads of bacon and processed meat, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes or cervical cancer.
Then after that trauma, our baby cots were covered with bright coloured lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets or shoes, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
Take away food was limited to fish and chips, no pizza shops, McDonalds, KFC, Subway or Nandos.
Even though all the shops closed at 6.00pm and didn't open on the weekends, somehow we didn't starve to death!
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We could collect old drink bottles and cash them in at the corner store and buy Toffees, Gobstoppers, Bubble Gum and some bangers to blow up frogs with.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soft drinks with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because......
WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of old prams and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. We built tree houses and dens and played in river beds with matchbox cars.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo Wii, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 999 channels on SKY,
no video/dvd films,
no mobile phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
Lawsuits from these accidents.
Only girls had pierced ears!
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
You could only buy Easter Eggs and Hot Cross Buns at Easter time...
We were given air guns and catapults for our 10th birthdays,
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!
Mum didn't have to go to work to help dad make ends meet!
RUGBY and CRICKET had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!! Getting into the team was based on
MERIT
Our teachers used to hit us with canes and gym shoes and bully's always ruled the playground at school.
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!
Our parents didn't invent stupid names for their kids like 'Kiora' and 'Blade' and 'Ridge' and 'Vanilla'
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO
DEAL WITH IT ALL!
And YOU are one of them!
CONGRATULATIONS!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.
And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave their parents were.
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!


Ain't dat the truth
 
Re: The Naked Communist/A Warning From South Africa/1984 Predictions From Yuri Bezmen

It spanks the Tea Party people as being part of the Ignorati. The author uses too many run-on sentences though.. makes for a hard read.
Kewl.
I am rather surprised that RM posted something against the Tea Party, but I just went to the post and read a few sections. You are correct! It basically praises Pres. Obama and, as you said, labels the Tea Party as... "There are no obvious intellectual leaders of the Tea Party Movement…why?...primarily because it is not based at all on truth, facts, intelligence, knowledge, education, history, logic, philosophy, critical thinking, etc. In this respect it is not just “the Party of No,” nor the self-described party of “hell no,” but much like the “Know-Nothing Party.” The movement and its leaders are riddled with contradictions."
I like it so much I'm going to re-post that quote here to prevent it from being edited by RM. ;)
There is a growing movement of the conservative and libertarian Republicans whose base and locomotive force is driven – and held hostage – by the Tea Party phenomenon. Firstly, this is technically, indeed, truly a “movement,” per se. Secondly, make no mistake about it, it is not at all revolutionary or progressive, but, on the contrary, is reactionary (it is backward, obsolete, and irrelevant). Thirdly, it is not at all unique and original – historically speaking, but is historically repetitive (which is partly why it is reactionary, that is to say, in opposition to history and progress, by going back to untenable solutions to problems of the past).

President Obama – and his opposition, in many ways, is historically similar to both historical epochs…those of Abraham Lincoln and Franklyn Delano Roosevelt. Both of the latter presidents arose to the call of great historically necessary challenges caused, in part, by their predecessors (or their reactionary inadequacies), culminating in a bitter struggle and ensuing opposition. The former president was embroiled in a period of a profound economic and moral struggle between that of a dying, archaic plantation system versus that of a newly rising system of industrial capitalism. The plantation system of the South was dependent upon (and reflective of) a traditionally privileged elite, a land-propertied aristocracy dependent upon slave labor, while capitalism is and was dependent upon a wider market of “free labor.” Since the formation of the nation, reflected in Thomas Jefferson’s original (yet, altered version of the) “Declaration of Independence,” there was a battle over slavery. Hence, Lincoln found himself immersed in the long-term moral, social, political, legal, and – more importantly, many would say – economic confrontation of freemen/free labor vs. chattel slavery/slave labor, while FDR faced the Great Depression, where the reality and impossibility of laissez-faire capitalism continuing without an unprecedented regulation and massive state interference via social programs (protection in order to prevent total collapse and mass starvation) came to fruition and were deemed necessary in the aftermath of unregulated capitalism under the Hoover administration.

Even though most historians and economists would agree that FDR saved the nation – making him the most beloved and popular president in the history of the U.S., winning an unprecedented third electoral victory – he had a strong and powerful opposition…the ruling class. Big business hated FDR regulating, “meddling” with their unlimited and unbridled wealth and power, based upon the super-exploitation of labor. “Big government” and “regulation” were the enemies of Big Business. The well known names of J.P. Morgan and DuPont, along with other, lesser known names, such as Prescott Bush (the father of President George Herbert Walker Bush, and the grandfather of George W. Bush) – and the leading organizations of the opposition, the American Liberty League and the American Legion (with William Doyle at the head), led a conspiracy to overthrow the government via a violent military coup, along with plans to assassinate Roosevelt. This did not come to fruition, however, due to General Smedley Butler backing out of the conspiracy of the military coup. Big business (content with Herbert Hoover’s “pull yourself up by the bootstrap” individual independence ideology) did not at all like Roosevelt’s Economic Recovery Act; the “New Deal,” the Social Security Act, taking the U.S. off of the gold standard, etc. These measures, however, truly saved the nation from total collapse and disaster, especially the majority, the masses, the working class of America. FDR’s actions were nothing more or less than desperate attempts at solving the contradictions of capitalism, from over-speculation and greed per se to mass unemployment. The Obama administration is this history repeating itself, but it is also that of Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War era, reliving the battle cries of the Confederacy, with general bigotry and racism in full bloom within the Tea Party Movement.

Similar to FDR, Abraham Lincoln was also perceived as a savior to working people, especially southern Blacks who were brutally exploited slaves. Lincoln’s opposition and eventual assassination reflected a divided nation with a seemingly unified confederacy with emotional battle cries of “secession,” “nullification,” and “state’s rights,” immediately following Lincoln’s election in 1860. This is type of opposition, complete with slogans and epithets shouted out at politicians in agreement with Obama, is carried on today (or ought I say, “is rearing its ugly head,” and resurfacing, once again) within the Tea Party Movement.

So, I submit to the reader, President Obama, actually a Black moderate liberal from the land of Lincoln (the first American Black president), who found himself elected within the next period of a fundamental economic crisis (a second Great Depression, only to be rivaled by the original) – brought on by unbridled greed and de-regulation – had to regulate and predictably bring on the wrath of libertarians and pro-Confederate bigots. His opposition, grounded in the growing Tea Party movement, originally (growing out of the historical Reagan “Ignorantsia” – as opposed to the Intelligentsia ) of “Birthers” who doubted Obama’s American birth certificate and accused him of being a Muslim, which – even if it were true, I believe, is still legal in America, began (as with Lincoln) immediately following his election, and was consistently and comprehensively peppered with racism, death threats, Confederate flags, and battle slogans. “Secession,” “nullification,” “state’s rights,” “keep the government out of my health care,” etc. shout the Tea Partiers. Southerners sought to nullify Lincoln’s election, as “Birthers,” likewise, sought to nullify Obama’s election. Furthermore, as with the opposition to FDR, deceptively false and accusative slogans of “government-run” and “socialism” have constantly plagued Obama, not just by Tea Partiers, but reflecting the entire Republican Party and its elected officials and pundits. The enemy, for Tea Partiers, is not “Big Business,” but “Big Government.” As with FDR, Obama’s regulation (enabling the credit, and thus, capitalist economic system to function at all, in addition to saving over thirty million people who had no health care), was hardly socialism, but, on the contrary, a capitalist solution to a capitalist problem (brought on by the de-regulation of Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush). At the time, socialists and communists were divided between praising FDR for saving the nation and/or condemning him for saving a broken capitalist system from its immediate demise and preventing communism from its immediate inevitability.

Karl Marx referred to this last stage of—state interference with—capitalism as “state monopoly capitalism,” a capitalism that has run its predictable and inevitable course from its earlier stages of “competitive capitalism” and “monopoly capitalism.” State monopoly capitalism is a stage that requires state control, regulation, and protection of both the ruling class monopolies and the majority of people. So, as with FDR, Obama is hardly a socialist.

What little known/startling facts about the Civil War fit in with the present thesis? From where did most of the leading (and more philosophical, which is to say, intelligent) Civil War historians get their analysis? The leading newspaper circulation at the time of the Civil War was the New York Daily Tribune. A major contributing news correspondent in the U.S. at that time was none other than Karl Marx. His brilliant and meticulous attention to detail reflected in his news analysis. The leading turn-of-the-century Civil War historian, Charles Beard (1927), as well as, later, Arthur Cole (1934), and then, even later, the esteemed team of Carl and Edith Becker, were greatly influenced by Marx and his analysis, as is the most prestigious contemporary (post-Civil War) Reconstruction historian, Erich Foner (1984). Beyond and besides his so-called (an overly-exaggerated) “economic interpretation of history,” Marx’s analysis (overshadowed by his historical materialism and theory of class struggle) reveals a great deal of profound facts and illusory notions, as they unfolded in the history of the Civil War era. It would do us well to take heed of Marx’s news analysis of this period, as it developed dialectically, for it further increases our insight into the fallacious veil of opposition endemic to both Lincoln and Obama.

It is this writer’s assessment that the greatest philosopher before Marx was G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel had commented on how history repeats itself. Marx added, “The first time as tragedy, the second as farce.” This, I believe, is how I would describe and sum up the opposition to Obama. Marx saw the Civil War as “the Second American Revolution,” not from the standpoint of the Confederacy, but that of Lincoln and the Union. The Union, that is, the United States represented both an economic and ethical position of progress, albeit one of capitalist freedoms. The Confederate South, on the contrary, represented the counter-revolution. In addition, Marx poignantly demonstrated how “the South” was really never “autonomous,” amounting to little more than “a battle slogan,” being “against the will of the people,” since there was hardly any democratic majority vote, beginning with the issue of “secession” from the Union as well as a matter of “forcing slavery against the will of the settlers” – e.g., in Kansas, Missouri, and Kentucky, and most certainly pertaining to any attempt at “nullification” regarding Lincoln’s duly elected, democratic victory by a majority. At first – and ironically, only South Carolina reflected an honest majority vote to secede from the Union, and then, Texas later joined in. Almost half of the population of Georgia were slaves! Marx, reflecting upon the South as a political-economic system, referred to the southern plantation system as an outmoded economy based entirely upon slave labor and landed property…and an “oligarchy of 300,000.” In a letter to Engels, Marx described the entire process, state-by-state, of how undemocratic practices and “terrorism” by minorities brought about secession from the Union, adding, “…incorrectly reported in the English papers. With the exception of South Carolina, there was everywhere the strongest opposition to secession.” A real popular vote only occurred in a handful of states; e.g. in Kentucky, only a few thousand voted for secession, whereas 100,000 voted for the Union ticket. And in Tennessee, a little over twice as many people voted for secession (104,913 for, 47,238 against).

There are no obvious intellectual leaders of the Tea Party Movement…why?...primarily because it is not based at all on truth, facts, intelligence, knowledge, education, history, logic, philosophy, critical thinking, etc. In this respect it is not just “the Party of No,” nor the self-described party of “hell no,” but much like the “Know-Nothing Party.” The movement and its leaders are riddled with contradictions. The most celebrated leading speaker for/at the Tea Party functions (that is, most demonstrations and talks) is Sarah Palin, a woman who claimed that she would rather cling to her guns and religion and go fishing and hunting. Statements by these Tea Partiers are reminiscent of the Nazi, Goering, who said “every time I hear the word culture, I want to reach for my gun” (as opposed to Woody Allen, who said “every time I hear the word gun, I reach for my culture”). For the apparent leaders of the movement, such as Sarah Palin (“don’t retreat, reload”) and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, there is much of this violent call-to-arms and anti-intellectualism (not just non-intellectual pride). Another head of the Tea Party (and “Secessionist”) Movement is Rick Perry, governor of Texas. Another, yet more intelligent Tea Partier is successfully opposing Senator McCain in Arizona, but ironically, was a “no show” at Tea Party events (as was the recent Tea Partier who won in Massachusetts…and also a “no show” at the ultimate Tea Party demonstration in Boston on tax day!). These Tea Party leaders like Palin and Perry actually boast and pride themselves on not really knowing much….about history, politics, being intellectual, “too deep.” For many of the leaders in the movement, like Perry, Palin, Bachmann, etc., they do not know much and do not want to know much; they do not care to know, and are woefully under-educated individuals. Again, that is precisely what is at the root of this form of populism. It is the new “Ignorantsia.” They condemn public education as a failure, and then de-value education per se, “education-for-education sake.” Only the “3Rs,” along with technology and a strictly vocational preparation (and even that, only in the private sector) is valued, not just by Tea Partiers, but by almost all conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans in general. I believe that many Republicans want to jump on the bandwagon of Tea Party popularity, yet stayed back at a distance (as “no shows” at T.P events) since it did not seem to be a very legitimate movement. However, in the recent evolutionary build-up to tax day, the movement has grown significantly while, at the same time, it has shed some of its obvious racist bigotry and talk of violence. Hence, it does seem to be in the process of legitimization (even though, at the tax day rally, Tea Party speaker Bob Marshall, Republican from Virginia, amped-up the violent rhetoric, once again).

Moreover, at the same time, the Tea Party Movement has also erroneously invoked the name of Thomas Jefferson on many occasions. They selectively and/or ignorantly eliminate the basics for which he stood, including a good, well-rounded, and free public education; against total freedom of trade, e.g., the necessary right of government to interfere with property rights at times, an anti-monopolist and pro-worker stand; his opposition to war, favoring and enacting the embargo against England; his unpopular anti-British/pro-French support in America for his friends, the most radical Leftists of the French Revolution, Robespierre and the Jacobins; his unswerving freedom of as well as freedom from religion, protecting the rights of atheists and others; and many other crucial points in total opposition to the Tea Party Movement. Their lack of education is woeful and their contradictions are many: they like their Medicare and Social Security, but hate anything “government run;” they hate the government (“bailing out”) interfering with the banking industry, but desperately love capitalism and the interest-bearing capital of lending and borrowing that it is based on (in order to buy and sell their cars and homes); they hate taxes and Obama’s tax plan, yet it is the lowest it has been in a long time (lower than taxes under Republican presidents, especially for the middle class), not to mention one of the lowest tax rates in the world…in the capitalist world; they are confused and selectively choose and actually invent what is constitutional and what is not – e.g., the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and concerning the legality of the federal income tax, Article I, Section 8. (1) of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”); and, thus, the new Tea Party Movement has very little to do with the original Boston Tea Party – the latter reflected a tax imposed by England, causing the slogan, “no taxation without representation,” while, in reality, our federal tax/es reflect the votes by our duly elected representatives in Congress.

Similarly, much too much misinformation surrounds all of the American presidents mentioned thus far. For that matter, the same, of course, can be said about Karl Marx himself. Although economics and the historical progress of economic systems were quintessential to his analysis and theories, so was social justice, and progressive reforms – whether or not they led to or fomented revolutions. This is why Lincoln was Marx’s friend and why Marx supported him, wholeheartedly. This is also why Lincoln thanked Marx for all of his support. This is also why Marx’s American friend, Joseph Weydemeyer, helped Lincoln get elected and re-elected, and fought as a colonel in Lincoln’s army against the Confederacy. The correspondence between Marx and Lincoln (via Ambassador Charles Francis Adams) is particularly interesting, both relentlessly seeking freedom and the liberation of all workers, with a premium on and prerequisite of freeing Blacks. It is a boldface lie that Lincoln didn’t care or wasn’t that interested in freeing the slaves. As Marx points out, Lincoln’s pre-electoral speeches, especially his “A House Divided Can Not Stand” speech merely emphasizes holding the Union together so as not to alienate Southerners.

History can teach us much, especially a deep, thoughtful history, a critical-philosophical approach, so as not to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Tragedy does become farcical at a point, and it is this writer’s opinion that the Tea Party Movement and the Republicans in general have already surpassed that folly. The real, historical basis for democracy in America began with free public education and the town hall meeting, with freedom of speech –as a process of learning, exchanging rational ideas, not of a mass media TV moment to shout down a speaker, accompanied with fallacious sound bites, and closing down all dialogue (including debate, an intelligent, honest debate of substance). A well rounded education (also called a “liberal education”) is the first prerequisite against the ignorance described in this essay, and the opposition to absolutely necessary measures taken by all three American presidents who rose to the occasion in times of crisis (along with many others), Lincoln, FDR, and Obama.
 
Back
Top