Communism Defined

Just a quick guidance for those wondering what the near future will be like: 

Does The West Respect Private Property?

If you respect private property rights then you may find the following story concerning. But first, to be clear, I'm basing my comments on what I found in this video. I probably don't have all the facts, so some caution is advised.

That said, it appears the superyacht Dilbar is currently sitting while seized/detained/arrested in a German shipyard. It is believed to be owned by a Russian oligarch who is subject to sanctions imposed following the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

But it turns out not to be owned by this oligarch. Instead it is owned by his sister, someone who was not even on any sanctions list. But when they discovered this, she was promptly added to the list.

Do you see a problem with any of this? I certainly do. This arbitrary seizure of private property, all of which appears to have been legally acquired and properly owned, can only undermine private property rights across the board. That means you, me, everyone. Russia, China and India will have noticed, and they're likely to respond. Any time you, your country or any friendly country acts in a way disapproved of, they may take what's yours. 'They' in this context means Russia or China acting in reprisal, but farther along, it may mean your own government taking what's yours. We are on a very slippery slope.

In the capitalist system, a system I tend to think once worked fine, owning something is not a crime. That's how communists think. With communism, property is theft. We've slipped so far as a society, we no longer see private property as a linchpin.

Fred Reed's Warning from 2002

Found this on the internet, please read. It sounds like the world we live in now, especially after the COVID-19 panic:

https://truebluenz.com/2020/06/01/warning-from-2002-doing-the-dc-bob/

In Washington, it’s everywhere, like God and mendacity: The DC Bob. As people talk, in fern bars, in eateries, on the sidewalk, an incorrect thought occurs, something that might upset Them. You know who They are: The racial, sexual, religious, and political groups that One Doesn’t Offend, the ideas and policies one mustn’t mention, the simple observations of fact that one may not make. We all know where trouble lies. And we are careful.

The incipient malefactor leans forward. He’s getting closer to his hearers to avoid eavesdroppers. Next he drops his chin and looks furtively over each shoulder in turn to see who might be listening. This is the DC Bob. It is routine. People don’t even notice that they are doing it.

The heretic whispers, “I’m sick of affirmative-action hires. We can’t get anything done in my office.”

The DC Bob. You have to watch what you say in America.

A while back I attended a party of people in government. I didn’t know them. They knew me indirectly from this column. We clutched Heinekens in the kitchen and chewed cheesy stuff on crackers. Pretending we weren’t, we felt each other out to be sure none of us was with the thought police (another ritual in Washington). The conversation came around to the deterioration of American society. The subject is common. In fact, it is close to inevitable.

One fellow finally said approximately, “I don’t get it. We all know what’s going on. Why can’t we even talk about it? This isn’t the Soviet Union.”

Ah, but, yes, actually, it is the Soviet Union. When people have to look over their shoulders before speaking in public places, when they are afraid to utter reasonable criticism of very questionable governmental policies, we’ve reached the suburbs of Moscow. I’m not trying to be cute about this. Ours is very much the same system of social control, but without the truncheons. It’s cleverly done, so that we have no way of revolting and nothing really to revolt against.

Yes, the penalties for political transgression are here lighter than in the USSR, but methods vary little. If you criticized Stalin, you got a bullet in the nape of the neck. Rubber hoses served their soothing purpose, and there were the Gulag and psychiatric committal. We don’t do these things here.

They aren’t necessary. To enforce conformity, the threat need not be extreme, merely adequate. Here, if you say the wrong thing, you lose your job. The years toward retirement vanish. The press savages you. You don’t get tenure or, if you have it, you are shunned by the rest of the faculty, including those who secretly agree with you but are afraid of the same treatment. This is enough. We don’t need thumbscrews.

Intimidation depends not just on penalties but upon the certainty, or near certainty, of their application. In the Soviet Union, people knew they would lose if they transgressed. They couldn’t run. The police were faster. They couldn’t hide. The police would find them. They couldn’t even die gloriously to make a statement. The government wouldn’t broadcast it. Hopelessness breeds passivity. People may rebel against long odds. They seldom rebel when they can accomplish nothing.

The same is true here. We can’t win, though the penalties are not grisly, and do not always come from the formal government. If we take the wrong position on the wrong subject, the federal EEO apparatus will crush us. The feds know they can and drag a case out for a decade spend us into submission. Institutions, companies, universities — will force us to apologize and publicly humiliate us. If we go to another university, apply for another job, the word will have gotten around and we won’t be hired.

The fewer the people you can trust, the greater the intimidation. In the Soviet Union, children were encouraged to rat out their parents. Under Stalin, it could be fatal. Things aren’t so bad here. Our kids are only occasionally asked to inform. (“Do your parents have guns?”) But in school, children are steeped unendingly in Appropriate Thought. In communist countries, it was more openly done, being honestly called Marxism-Leninism or Mao Tse Dung Thought. In our schools it’s packaged as immanent self-evident Goodness. The effect is to erect a police wall between parents and children.

Do I exaggerate? Try telling your kid that Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman (whoever she was) were perhaps not the central achievement of Western Civilization, that there is an astronomical lopsidedness by race in commission of crime, or that universal illegitimacy may involve both immorality and irresponsibility. The tad will likely be horrified that you are such a racist. Don’t teachers and the telescreen say so?

And so many parents speak carefully at home, checking to see that the children aren’t listening. As in the Soviet Union, indoctrination is the unspoken purpose of schooling.

Here, as in the USSR, the press — in particular the ever-whispering screen, half-ignored, babbling like a brook, slowly depositing assumptions, views, unnoticed beliefs — is the key to social control. Russians knew they were being lied to, but they didn’t know how much. Our telescreens lie more subtly, and thus more effectively. The principle is that if people absorb one lie in two, tell them three. Soon they will believe, enough. That is all it takes.

American journalism isn’t as controlled as that of the Soviet Union, but it is controlled enough. In the media the punishment for deviationist thought is swift and sure. We in the trade know exactly what we can and cannot say. Criticize the wrong things and you will lose your job and be, for practical purposes, blacklisted.

Many journalists of course know what is going on, assuredly including editors of major publications. But, being intimidated, they intimidate. Thus what we know we don’t write, and what we write we don’t believe. Editorialists and columnists argue pointlessly within understood constraints, like ping-pong balls bouncing between two walls. The walls are there. One doesn’t step beyond.

Yet there is more to it. Editors do not control the content of publications. Advertisers do, advertisers and the owners. If you buy important amounts of advertising, you have veto power.

Sometimes the influence is quietly explicit. A major upper-middle-brow magazine once assigned me a story that might have involved criticism of defense contractors. The editor asked me to go easy on McDonnell-Douglas because it advertised. This is not uncommon. But usually writers just know what They don’t want. And they don’t write it. They are afraid.

Looking over our shoulders, dealing cautiously with strangers, doing the DC Bob.

Climate Strikes: What Kind of Message?

Climate strikers are trying to save the planet. They're skipping school, work, and descending on houses of parliament and public spaces to demonstrate. Now it doesn't take a genius to work out their efforts will be for nought. But what I'm concerned about are two things: what is the end point for what is being proposed and who exactly is behind the giving of the message.

Imagine the strikes are successful and what is being asked for comes about. What kind of world would that be exactly. That would be a world I certainly wouldn't want to live in. Follow the logic; cars are bad, you can't use your car, you can't own a car, take your car away, the way you live is also bad, change how you live, tell you where to live, take your house away, all property is theft.

That's right, bloody communism, or whatever label you want to put on it. Look into the people behind organising these climate strikes, look at their politics. They can stuff off.

UN Compact on Migration

People have just woken up. They've discovered there's a move to take all their money, here's how:

I remember reading academic papers 13 years ago (count them), that called for the removal of national boundaries when it came to migration. Now this thought process has got to the United Nations stage, and the final step will be each country implementing the ideas within their own legislation.

This is a form of theft. That's right, theft. The idea is to flood the western world with migrants and once they're established in their new countries, they can change the laws at will once they're the majority.

The problem is partly of the West's own making. They didn't make babies. So there is that. But the other part of the equation is to do with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the failure of communism, socialism, anarchism, call it what you will. This failure meant the old game plan wouldn't work, the enemy of capitalism needed a new game and they came up with a twofold approach.

The first was to ditch the colour red, for the colour green. Communists became green overnight, they were instant ecologists. But they are anything but, they are still communists. From the pocket of those who earnt it, to the pockets of those who haven't earnt it but control the distribution of it. Control the resources, the means of production, distribution and exchange and you own everything. It's got nothing to do with freeing the proletariat from the hegemony of the capitalist monster, but everything to do with greed.

The debate around global climate change (GCC) has been hijacked by these wolves in sheep's clothing. These days you hardly hear from a hard scientist on this important topic, instead it's all about the politics of GCC, and how to hobble the west while profiting the favoured few (who seem to always be the Greens - no surprise there).

Then the second approach was to use humanitarian crises to launch invasions and to make this mandated. That's what the UN Compact on Migration is about.

Think about this over Xmas folks, have a nice Saturnalia.

Greens Can't Be Trusted

The Greens are almost always wrong about everything and here's why:-

Myth: the world is over-populated.

Wrong: we are not even close to being over-populated. I'll give you this factoid to illustrate; if you took every person on planet earth and sent them to New Zealand's Stewart Island, they'd fit standing up shoulder to shoulder.

Here's a map of Stewart Island:-

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Stewart_Island_map-en.svg/260px-Stewart_Island_map-en.svg.png

Another way of looking at this, I've flown the Siberian route from Tokyo to London, done it twice in fact. It takes twelve hours or thereabouts and during that flight about nine hours is spent flying over wilderness. The only time it is obvious that you're flying over population is the three hours coming down to London over western Europe.

Or if you don't like that example, try Los Angeles to London, same result, flying over the US and Canada, you look down and struggle to find any evidence of humanity.

Myth: Kyoto agreement and the rest will save the planet

Wrong: these so-called climate change agreements are there to protect Europe's interests and to transfer wealth from the industrialised world to the second and third world.

Why is 1990 the line in the sand with Kyoto? Why not 100 BC or 100 AD or any other year for that matter? The answer to this is simple; Europe knew that they had natural gas supplies coming on stream later in the 1990's and that at 1990 their emissions were unusually large. Hence they'd be able to easily meet their targets because their emissions were going to fall anyway, seeing as natural gas is far friendlier than burning fossil fuels.

I remember Nick Smith, that weaselling Minister for climate nonsense in New Zealand grandstanding around Kiwiland with his doctorate in civil engineering. outright lying to Kiwis about why they needed a new tax to save the planet, as if such a small nation could do anything about it. What Smith said and what was an outright lie, was that Kiwis would never be paying Russia to not cut down trees.

Why was Nick Smith telling a lie? He would have known about the Marrakesh amendment to Kyoto that did contain a provision that amounted to paying Russia to not cut down trees. That is a transfer of wealth from the first world to the second world. Outrageous communist nonsense, from those who have, to those who have never done a day's work in their lives.

Look at this another way if you don't like the above example. Imagine that that good old freedom fighter and consolidator of sensible societies everywhere, Genghis Khan, lived earlier, around the time of Hadrian. He wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective as trees stood in his way. There would have been no sweeping across the steppes as he'd have been dodging the forests, he'd have had to keep to the coastlines of the Black Sea and when he did that the Romans would have picked his armies off. They had a navy and they'd make landings behind him, cutting off his supplies.

Do you see my point? The Black Forest is called that because no light penetrated. It was vast, but now it's just this quaint patch of greenery.

Why the frig are we, new world people, expected to pay for their stupidity, that is, Eurotrash wingnuttery that saw them cut all their trees down. Any climate solution must involve Europe putting their trees back to create a carbon sink of some value.

Myth: Greens are really cute fluffy bunnies.

Wrong: the Greens everywhere are just the communist party re-branded. Back in the 70's and 80's members of the Greens today were often communists and no-one voted for them, ever. When the Berlin Wall fell and communism collapsed, or the regimes just morphed into totalitarian capitalism, these ideologues decided to jump ship and acquire a brand that was saleable. They chose Greens.

It's easy to see they're communists if you look carefully enough; they think the state is always right and the individual should submit to it, they don't like private property and they think profit is bad, and they're generally in favour of loose morals and try to undermine traditional family values. More importantly they oppose western industrialised countries having strong armies. Oh dear, don't be obvious there Greens.

The worrying thing is that Green ideology appears attractive to impressionable young people so it's over the us oldies to put these young people right. My suggestion, and I've done this with my own children, is never let anything Green get a free pass. Ridicule, object, condemn, but do not let Greens have a say in anything as they're the enemy and want to destroy our civilisation and must not be allowed to.