Fascism + Solutions

[eye_of_the_storm]

For purposes of ... wild speculation

 

There are some interesting aspects to Fascism that I believe would be beneficial to our current situation..

 

Particularly the concept of Autarky...

 

Thoughts?

 

Is there a way we can expand / develop these ideas?

 

Into a 21st c working model or use it to develop a new system of governance?

 

I was thinking of starting another thread - "Create Your Dream Government" or something haha... and have forum members develop/ experiment / play with a potential new system of governance.

 

But I wanted to cause a little (more) commotion haha

 

//////

 

Fascism was influenced by Saint-Simonian utopian socialism that accepted private property and had criticized the legacy of the French Revolution that fascism also has done.^[11]

 

Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy; the principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.^[10] It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property whenever necessary to protect its interests.^[10]

 

Autarky is the quality of being self-sufficient. Usually the term is applied to political states or their economic systems. The latter are called closed economies.^[1] Autarky exists whenever an entity can survive or continue its activities without external assistance or international trade. Autarky is not necessarily economic. For example, a military autarky would be a state that could defend itself without help from another country. Autarky can be said to be the policy of a state or other entity when it seeks to be self-sufficient as a whole, but also can be limited to a narrow field such as possession of a key raw material.

Etymology

 

The word "autarky" is from the Greek: aὐτάρκειa, which means "self-sufficiency" (derived from aὐτο-, "self," and ἀρκέω, "to suffice"). The term is sometimes confused with autocracy (Greek: aὐτoκρaτίa/aὐτaρχίa "government by single absolute ruler") or autarchy. Libertarian theorist Robert LeFevre used "autarchy" and "autarchism" in the sense of self-government to describe his own political philosophy and to distinguish it from anarchism.

 

The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.

 

There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.^[35] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.^[36][37] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views.

 

Fascism as a form of tyranny

 

One of the most common and strongest criticisms of fascism, is that it is a tyranny in practice.^[220]

Fascism is commonly regarded as deliberately and entirely non-democratic and anti-democratic.^{[221][222][223]} Scholar on democracy, Anthony Arblaster has recorded fascists' policy claim about the ideology supporting a form of democracy, but Arblaster regards the claim as a deliberate lie and empty rhetoric, claiming that fascism never intended to put such claims of democracy into practice, and thus he categorizes fascism as non-democratic and anti-democratic in practice.^[224]

 

However there have been scholars who have rebuked this common critical view. Scholar on fascism Walter Laqueur says that fascists "would not necessarily accept the label of 'anti-democratic'. In fact many of them argued that they were fighting for a purer and more genuine democracy in which the participation of the individual in politics would not be mediated by professional politicians, clerical influences, the availability of the mass media, but through personal, almost full time involvement in a political movement and through identification with the leader who would represent the feelings and sentiments of the whole people."^[225]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Edited January 5, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

Buddhist fascism?

Visionary fascism was, and indeed still is, exceptionally deeply fascinated by the Buddhocratic form of state. In the late thirties (as the various fascist systems bloomed in Europe and the whole world) Spencer Chapman, a traveler in Tibet, wrote that even in the days of the dictators one can only be amazed at what uncontested power the Dalai Lama possesses” (Chapman, 1940, p. 192). The idea of kingship of the world, the uniting of spiritual and secular power in a single person, the ideology of war in the Shambhala myth, the uncompromisingly andocentric orientation, the tantric vision of the feminine, the whole occult ambience and much more besides were specifically adopted by several fascist ideologists and welded together into an aggressive myth. As we shall soon see, entire fascist systems are based upon the adoption of Tibetan/tantric doctrines.

 

http://www.gurdjieff...ddhist-fascism/

 

How might one easily prove that "Eastern" faith was identical with the unverifiable assumptions of "Western" religion? Here is a decided statement by "Gudo," a very celebrated Japanese Buddhist of the first part of the twentieth century:

 

As a propagator of Buddhism I teach that "all sentient beings have the Buddha nature" and that "within the Dharma there is equality with neither superior nor inferior." Furthermore, I teach that "all sentient beings are my children." Having taken these golden words as the basis of my faith, I discovered that they are in complete agreement with the principles of socialism. It was thus that I became a believer in socialism."

 

There you have it again: a baseless assumption that some external "force" has a mind of its own, and the faint but menacing suggestion that anyone who disagrees is in some fashion opposed to the holy or paternal will. I excerpt this passage from Brian Victoria's exemplary book Zen at War, which describes the way the majority of Japanese Buddhists decided that Gudo was right in general but wrong in particular. People were indeed to be considered children, as they are by all faiths, but it was actually fascism and not socialism that the Buddha and the dharma required of them.

 

http://www.screamsfr...r_hitchens.html

 

different points of view...

Edited January 5, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

It will take me awhile to research what you have written and later I will comment. While reading about the aesthetics of fascism and in particular how that relates to 'Game of Thrones', I found this piece by Robert Lenkeiwicz.

 

 

http://www.robertlenkiewicz.org/concept-aesthetic-fascism

 

 

 

The concept of aesthetic fascism

 

 

 

Robert Lenkiewicz formulated the idea of aesthetic fascism to encapsulate his ideas about what happens when we form an attraction so strong towards another person that we tend to treat them as property.

It grew out of his observation of the behaviour of the street alcoholics and addicts who often appear in his paintings, people who “would cut your throat for another drink”, as he put it. Lenkiewicz noticed the deep similarity between this “addictive scenario” and what he called “the falling in love experience”. In evidence, he offered the traumatic experience of jealousy, which he regarded as being identical to the kind of withdrawal symptoms felt by addicts deprived of their drug of choice.

He noticed that the obsessive fascination with the beloved person could often lead to acts of ruthlessness and violence. “I often feel,” he said, “that in the most intense romantic scenarios… there is an undertone of ruthless psychopathic expectation, a curious heartlessness. If one had genuine concern for one’s partner then the first thing one would do is leave them.” He was sceptical about claims that in love one ‘cared’ about the other person in a selfless sense, quoting the German philosopher Nietzsche’s pithy expression: “How nicely does doggish lust beg a piece of spirit when a piece of flesh is denied it.”

He used the term ‘aesthetic’ to distinguish his idea from psychological or moral theories of behaviour. He believed we were drawn to people because of an innate physical propensity to become intoxicated or entranced “by sensations linking to desire, attraction and jealousy”. Lenkiewicz was unconvinced that such attractions even had much to do with any objective qualities possessed by the other person. “A portcullis has come down at the first glance between yourself and the other and one’s relationship is with that portcullis… one’s own aesthetic vulnerability. Some people are more or less addicted to that aesthetic vulnerability, but believe themselves to be addicted to the other person.” He regarded this as a physiological mechanism; a system of pleasure/pain inbuilt in the human body. He was fascinated by the fact that the visceral, gut feelings reported by jilted lovers, withdrawing addicts or fanatics whose beliefs were threatened, were almost invariably described in exactly the same terms.

In this context, Lenkiewicz was employing the common definition of ‘fascism’ as the tendency to deny fully human status to certain kinds of people and to exalt specific others. He felt that “the aesthetic fascism involved in saying ‘I fancy that person; I’m attracted to that person’ is quite often made of pretty unattractive stuff.” This proclivity to focus exclusively on a particular individual struck him as the dark mirror image of the fascistic impulse to persecute the stranger or outsider. Lenkiewicz was therefore very sympathetic with attempts to locate the origins of Fascism (capital F for the political phenomenon) in the physiology of the individual rather than in materialist or economic causes - 'The Mass Psychology of Fascism' by Wilhelm Reich was an important text for him.

Lenkiewicz argued that the same aesthetic mechanism was at work in our devotion to philosophical, ethical or ideological convictions. For him it was not a question of right or wrong, what he called “the moral squint”, or even of compelling evidence of truth, but of the relative strength of our attraction to one idea or another. He scarcely accepted therefore that people’s convictions could be changed by rational argument, observing that we seldom have good reasons for holding the beliefs we do.

His magnificent private library provided ample evidence of the extraordinary capacity humans have for self-delusion in thrall to fanatical belief systems. The sections on alchemy or the 16th & 17th century witch burning craze showed how the most acute intelligences of the period could hold the most insane beliefs, and be prepared to kill (or die) for them. All too often, certainty precedes atrocity. If that seemed historically remote, he could point to incidents like the disastrous FBI assault on the Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas; “one fanatical belief system wiping out another”.

The tenor of Lenkiewicz’ ideas—many people thought them cold-hearted or cynical—seemed inconsistent with his amiability and generosity. Surely there was some sort of moral principle in play? He would have none of that. For him it was just a matter of being “attracted to a certain aesthetic package” that inlcuded humane treatment of less advantaged people. He was sympathetic to talk of human rights or the dignity of life but regarded such ideas as “beautiful metaphors, poetry”.

Lenkieiwcz believed that a re-evaluation of human behaviour in aesthetic and physiological terms would inevitably aid us in “enjoying life without making a nuisance of ourselves.” Our attraction towards an idea or system of belief doesn’t make it right and nor do our attractions for other people oblige them to respond to our feelings or grant us rights over them. “Once one establishes that it is an aesthetic experience one is undergoing and not something else, then a number of behaviour patterns which lead to obsessive or fanatical behaviour could evaporate.”

[ralis]

An introduction on how 'The Third Reich' exploited autarky.

 

http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/autarky.htm

[ShenLung]

How might one easily prove that "Eastern" faith was identical with the unverifiable assumptions of "Western" religion? Here is a decided statement by "Gudo," a very celebrated Japanese Buddhist of the first part of the twentieth century:

 

As a propagator of Buddhism I teach that "all sentient beings have the Buddha nature" and that "within the Dharma there is equality with neither superior nor inferior." Furthermore, I teach that "all sentient beings are my children." Having taken these golden words as the basis of my faith, I discovered that they are in complete agreement with the principles of socialism. It was thus that I became a believer in socialism."

 

There you have it again: a baseless assumption that some external "force" has a mind of its own, and the faint but menacing suggestion that anyone who disagrees is in some fashion opposed to the holy or paternal will. I excerpt this passage from Brian Victoria's exemplary book Zen at War, which describes the way the majority of Japanese Buddhists decided that Gudo was right in general but wrong in particular. People were indeed to be considered children, as they are by all faiths, but it was actually fascism and not socialism that the Buddha and the dharma required of them.

 

 

I find Gudo's opening statement, in red, to be quite good. If only all sentient beings regard others in the same way. The problem comes in the second statement, in green. By creating a false distinction between the ruler or the teacher and the ruled or the student, a barrier to progress or enlightenment is made. The socialist leadership might, indeed, manage to elevate the status of some, but in doing so, will surely debase the status of others, and never allow any to become so elevated as to rival their own status. In this way, the socialist state reaches a point where there is stagnation, no progress, and only with brutal suppression does it maintain it's power.

[ralis]

 

Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy; the principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.^[10] It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property whenever necessary to protect its interests.^[10]

 

 

The right wing here in the U.S. through various forms of propaganda has created the ideology (meme) of the so called rugged individual. However, this delusional concept is used in such a manner as to create followers of nationalistic ideologies that are pro state as opposed to pro individual. Social Darwinism at it's finest!

Edited January 5, 2013 by ralis

[eye_of_the_storm]

@ Ralis... I find the Lenkiewicz muddled / out of context...

 

In such that say "democracy" is the greatest and most noble truth / system... as opposed to fascism...or communism

 

the USA has 900 odd military bases around the world in 130 odd countries??

 

The notion that Germany wanted to take over the world is... hilarious... when you look at what the.. "good guys" have done after WW2

 

+ Communism having systematically killed over the last 100 years around 200 million + civilians

 

Though this is rarely spoken of...why?

 

... just wanted to look at the philosophy of it... really

 

I find the reference to Buddhism being Fascist interesting... one has to let go of preconceived ideas...

 

They have a supreme leader / though elected by the other monks

 

Ethnically homogeneous (of which nearly every nation in the world is... except for European nations which have been sold mass immigration + welfare under some colourful rainbow delusion... a false sense of diversity that will end up being one shade of grey... like when you mix all the paints together. - - - Nature is very strict with this...this is what creates true diversity... as Mohammed Ali said red birds with red birds, blue birds with blue birds...all very common sense stuff. )

 

They all share in the work and profits in order to strengthening/ excel their position / life as a whole.

Edited January 6, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

I find Gudo's opening statement, in red, to be quite good. If only all sentient beings regard others in the same way. The problem comes in the second statement, in green. By creating a false distinction between the ruler or the teacher and the ruled or the student, a barrier to progress or enlightenment is made. The socialist leadership might, indeed, manage to elevate the status of some, but in doing so, will surely debase the status of others, and never allow any to become so elevated as to rival their own status. In this way, the socialist state reaches a point where there is stagnation, no progress, and only with brutal suppression does it maintain it's power.

 

I found the green part funny too...

 

I don't believe Fascism was to be a welfare state like Communism, USA is today and other European countries...

 

The fascist would agree with your statement "the socialist (welfare) state reaches a point where there is stagnation, no progress..."

 

Communist creation ... under the all are equal / "equal" distribution of wealth etc..

 

which destroys the nation...as per USA today

 

I don't believe people to be equal... as in nature things are not equal

 

you take a class of 20 kids... some will be smarter, faster, stronger... some will have great capacity for empathy or creativity or work ethic etc.

 

as the saying goes in terms of collectives...you are only as strong as the weakest link in the chain

 

the welfare state rewards the weakest links of society ... it isnt long before the society / civilization collapses.

 

In terms of absolutes perhaps yes we all have Buddha nature or some divine spark... are are all equal in that sense...

 

but in an earthly sense thing isn't so

 

+ nobody believes it anyway... why arnt all animals great and small all equal too? we do they not have equal rights?

 

Ive seen elephants paint ..better than a good number of humans.. maybe they are more intelligent?

 

When you want a building constructed you don't choose any man and say... all are equal all have the buddha nature!

 

You find the best engineer you can afford.

Edited January 6, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[GrandmasterP]

Wherever political fascism has held sway there was far less individual liberty for the masses than you tend to find under wobbly old democracy.

Fair enough the folk at the top of the fascist pile could more or less do as they chose but for the squeezed middle classes and folk further down the ladder things weren't quite so hot.

Not to mention minorities and the disabled.

Fascist chic is cool though all that social realism, cabaret music , really sharp fashion sense mixed with heady decadence at the top.

Some of those video games designer geeks cottoned onto fascist chic early on so you see that coming through in some gaming imagery and concepts.

[ralis]

@ Ralis... I find the Lenkiewicz muddled / out of context...

 

 

Then you are misinformed as to what fascism is. There are aspects of; suppressed emotion i.e, rigid conditioning, authoritarianism, rigid character structure i.e, armoring, heartless disregard for others, fervent nationalism etc. These are all aspects of Social Darwinism which is where fascism arises from. Further, there is always the aesthetic aspect which is the visual representation as an instrument of power so as to manipulate the hearts and minds of a nation for any higher cause. Moreover, propaganda was and is a vital part of any will to power.

 

Given your flippant disregard for historical writing, I would suggest reading some before stating trite remarks such as saying that is it hilarious that 'Hitler wanted to rule the world'. That is a common theme of all military adventurists. Napoleon, Alexander etc.

 

The best example of the 'aesthetics of fascism' is the following movie.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

Other points on the 'aesthetics of fascism'.

 

 

http://www.jstor.org...=21101503564153

 

http://www.overthink...hrones-fascism/

 

http://mubi.com/lists/fascist-aesthetics

Edited January 6, 2013 by ralis

[GrandmasterP]

Say what you like about fascism but that Leni Riefenstahl could make a hell of a movie.

[eye_of_the_storm]

It is hilarious considering... at the time it was fighting against (for one) the British Empire which had already conquered most of the world

 

+ and now at present the USA Empire... which really is an extension of the British... the USA never won... which is really under the yoke of an international banking syndicate

 

Hypocritical is what I am trying to say.

 

The words you used could equally describe the USA and much of the world today... however more subversive / subtle / devious in it ways...stagnant / state of entropy

 

Mass Media... MTV Hollywood etc etc celebrity worship - consumerism / materialism ... worship of the individual and nothing else... no idea of the individual being a part of something greater than himself... growing atheism and decay of morality / ethics etc so on

 

Rewarding the lowest expressions of humanity

 

Globalism / Internationalism destroying planet / people / culture ... if you have seen the movie Wall E... I think that is a good indication of the future... if we continue this way... where the only culture is BUY N SELL.... with the only purpose in life being BUY N SELL

 

again... the USA has 900 odd military bases around the world in 130 odd countries??

 

The people having absolutely no say in their apparent democracy...All of this being covered in other threads in the off topic section in great detail.

 

Considering what Germany had been through previously... its rise collectively etc is a natural reaction to being so heavily suppressed collectively.

 

I guess what I am asking/ saying is... which dictatorship is better (to a small degree)?

Edited January 7, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[GrandmasterP]

Maybe the one where the majority of people think it's tolerable and get to vote if they want to?

Academic to me as I don't vote, ever.

It only encourages the feckers.

[eye_of_the_storm]

ahaha

[eye_of_the_storm]

In terms of nationalism... I think a good many people on the earth a nationalist

 

Everyone identifies with their homeland....

 

Are we an expression of the land? born of the earth? ... or is the earth born of us?

 

I think that we are an expression of the land... many people have a deep reverence for the land / the land from which they arise.

 

I'd like to see a person try and convince a Chinese / American/ Japanese / Indian and so on person that they are not...

 

Everyone is nationalist, Everyone is a racially aware whether they admit to it or not.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together... even if this is a subconscious drive.. (natural) +everywhere in nature...

Edited January 7, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

It is hilarious considering... at the time it was fighting against (for one) the British Empire which had already conquered most of the world

 

 

 

Hilarious? Tell that to the victims of the Jewish genocide! Or the other millions of deaths resulting from the war. Nothing hilarious about it. How old are you?

 

Your moral rambling's about atheism are not part of a discussion on fascism. That does not fit.

[ShenLung]

The practice of maintaining a military presence abroad in anticipation of possible future conflict is a poor substitution for having real strategic mobility. By staging war material in various places around the globe, it provides an opportunity to bring it to bear when needed, but it is horribly ineficient, and may present a percieved threat where no hostility is intended. Rome could not bear the cost, and Rome was drawing actual tribute from the nations that hosted it's far flung garrisons.

 

consider the following:

 

External Strategic Mobility is concerned with the transportation needs of the military when operating beyond the borders of the State. It depends mainly on sea and air modes of transportation.

 

Sea Transportation:

Sea transport is the most efficient means of projecting military force abroad. Deep water ports should have loading and staging areas sufficient to accommodate the largest pieces of material, with cranes capable of manipulating these payloads. Ports should be closely or directly connected to rail lines, highways, airfields, and even inland waterways where possible. Close diplomatic ties with other nations that posses deep water ports is indispensable when it becomes necessary for the military to operate abroad. Craft specifically designed to transfer cargo at sea, and deliver cargo to shore in the absence of a port should be built and maintained.

 

Air Transportation:

Insuring safe landing zones for transport aircraft should be a priority for the diplomatic corps. In the absence of such airfields, cargo craft may be refueled in flight by tanker craft.

 

Transportation Capacity:

Transportation craft and specialty vehicles used for regular and routine purposes should be built and maintained by the State. Transportation capacity beyond routine usage should be either conscripted from civilian interests, or built to military specifications, and leased to commercial interests during times of peace.

 

Would not the support of such capacity to move an army if it were necessary to do so be preferable to the current situation?

Now, it can be argued that the practice of using the US dollar as the standard for commodity exchange amounts to a defacto tribute, but the glaring ineficiency of this system of forward staging still remains.

[ralis]

In terms of nationalism... I think a good many people on the earth a nationalist

 

Everyone identifies with their homeland....

 

Are we an expression of the land? born of the earth? ... or is the earth born of us?

 

I think that we are an expression of the land... many people have a deep reverence for the land / the land from which they arise.

 

I'd like to see a person try and convince a Chinese / American/ Japanese / Indian and so on person that they are not...

 

Everyone is nationalist, Everyone is a racially aware whether they admit to it or not.

 

Birds of the same feather flock together... even if this is a subconscious drive.. (natural) +everywhere in nature...

 

Did you watch the movie I posted? Rampant nationalism is what I am referring to as what is shown in the movie. Do you read history?

[eye_of_the_storm]

Hilarious? Tell that to the victims of the Jewish genocide! Or the other millions of deaths resulting from the war. Nothing hilarious about it. How old are you?

 

Your moral rambling's about atheism are not part of a discussion on fascism. That does not fit.

 

Taking things out of context.

 

Jewish genocide? WW2 70 million approx people died... 50 million approx being civilians

 

Of peoples from many varying backgrounds...

 

I want to know why we never hear about the 70 million Christians exterminated in Communist / Bolshevik Russia --- Gulags etc

 

Or how about the economic warfare waged on German proceeding WW2...

 

With the entire German population starving to death...in a nation wide concentration camp ...treaty of Versailles

 

There are so many factors...

 

Not saying what is right and what is wrong... just that its much more complex than... what about the jews?

Edited January 7, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ShenLung]

When people start trying to "fix what is wrong with the world" through the execution of force, stuff like this happens.

When people in sufficient numbers take to the idea of "yes, the world is a mess, but I can fix myself" it wont.

[eye_of_the_storm]

I would prefer to talk about philosophy/idea rather than history...

 

History gets too...

 

Ideas we can discuss however

Edited January 7, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

When people start trying to "fix what is wrong with the world" through the execution of force, stuff like this happens.

When people in sufficient numbers take to the idea of "yes, the world is a mess, but I can fix myself" it wont.

 

Everything is force... in one form or another...

 

Ideas are force... laws are force... mass media is a force... education is a force... economy is a force..etc

 

all of these are more or less violent

 

^ these are much more dangerous really... because they go unnoticed for the most and can have devastating effects... as the enemy is well within the gate before anything is noticed

Edited January 7, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

WW1 for example was jealously... the British Empire could see the development of Germany and its growing power (economics / tech etc)... and decided to take out the competition... They wanted to maintain their world domination... and have til this day.

 

Initially Germany nullified the threat... Britian wasnt too happy about that... + Rothchild Banking family saw an opportunity to profit from the war... $$$$$$$$ heavily backed Britain and drew USA into the game

 

History is written by the victors

Edited January 7, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

@ Ralis - Atheism (As Fascism apparently opposed Communism)

 

Peter Hitchens is the ex-atheist brother of atheist Christopher Hitchens. In an article entitled Britain needs God Creation Ministries International wrote about Peter Hitchens:

“

Peter wrote that his views changed slowly, as he came to see the fruit of atheism. Part of this realisation came when he was working as a journalist in Moscow, during the final years of the Soviet Union. His depiction of this godless society was sobering. He wrote of the riots that broke out when the vodka ration was cancelled one week; the bribes required to obtain anaesthetics at the dentist or antibiotics at the hospital; the frightening levels of divorce and abortion; the mistrust and surveillance; the unending official lies, manipulation and oppression; the squalor, desperation and harsh incivility. Peter wrote of how traffic stops dead in Moscow when rain begins to fall, as every driver fetches wind-screen wipers from their hiding places and quickly fits them to their holders. Any wipers left in place when the car is parked are stolen as a matter of course.

 

The atheist, humanistic ideology of the state, he believed, had even affected the Russian language. Peter spoke to a descendant of an exile, whose grandparents had fled Moscow in the days of Lenin. Having been brought up to speak pure Russian in his American home—the elegant, literary language of his parents—he was shocked when he visited Russia to hear the coarse, ugly, slang-infested and bureaucratic tongue that was now spoken, even by educated professionals.^[26] ”

 

Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal Soviet communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation: “

Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'

 

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' ^[27]

http://www.conservap...m_and_communism

Edited January 7, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air