The Communist Memorial in Washington Mall is a JOKE!!!

national review recently ran an article about the communist victims' memorial in washington DC with a degree of pride and satisfaction. in fact, this memorial is the ultimate insult, and much of the blame must be laid at the feet of americans and at the fact that so much of our understanding of history is held hostage by liberal and leftwing jewish interests.

6 million jews died in the holocaust, and we hear about it over and over on PBS, NPR, newspapers, school rooms, tv news, academic discourse, and on and on. the anniversary of the holocaust is held year after year. indeed, there isn't a soul in the US who doesn't know the general details of the nazi mass killing of the jews.
in the DC mall, there is a giant, lavish holocaust memorial museum. though the holocaust didn't happen in the US and though jews make up less than 2% of the US population, the jewish tragedy has been the central focus of american history, politics, and morality since at least the 60s.
but, what about the victims of communism? we are talking of perhaps 100 million who were killed in myriad horrible ways--mass executions, forced starvation, forced labor, warfare, and by being pushed toward suicide. and that's just people killed by communism. what about the cultures destroyed by communism? and works of art burnt, churches razed to the ground, the people arrested, people living in abject fear, children brainwashed to spy and inform on their own parents, and all the oppressives measures of totalitarian states.
all of these horrors will be commemorated in the mall with what? a replica of the statue set up by chinese students in 1989? this is something to rejoice about? are conservatives at national review crazy?
would jews be giddy with a sense of victory if the holocaust had been finally commemorated by a statue called 'smiling jewess holding up a torch of liberty'?
other than that, the 1989 mass protests in china were not really about or against communism but about greater political freedoms. as such, it had more in common with similar protests--led by idealistic young folks--in nations like south korea and philippines. the issue wasn't rightwing or leftwing but simply more freedom and liberty for all. indeed, by 1989, china was less a communist nation than a fascist nation--like what taiwan and south korea had been until their transformation into democracies or like what singapore still is(a technocratic fascist city state). deng pretty much gave up on communist ideology and dogma. he mainly kept communist as a symbol of unity and chinese pride. in practice, programs, and overall national strategy, deng's path to modernity was essentially fascist--combination of socialism and capitalism, combination of traditional culture and modernizing influences, combination of nationalism and international trade, etc. so, it's wrong to see the 1989 student uprising as essentially an anti-communist affair. it was essentially an anti-authoritarian affair. in terms of youth protest and expression, chinese in late 80s had caught up to the youths who had risen up in south korea and philippines--nations ruled by authoritarian right.

other than that, the goddess of liberty is a wrong symbol for the horrors of communism. it's too general and could stand for resistance not just to communism but to any kind of tyranny. a memorial remembering the horrors of communism need to be specific just as holocaust memorials are specific. holocaust memorials are not simply about oppression or genocide throughout history; they are specifically about the crimes of nazi germany and its collaborators against the jews(and some others). if holocaust memorial encompassed the tragedies of all peoples at all times, it would lose its potency. similarly, the goddess of liberty is too general to stand for communist oppression. also, the statue is too blissful, hopeful, and pretty to emphasize the essence of communism--ruthlessness, drabness, grimness, murderousness, brainwashness, colorlessness, bloodthirstiness, etc. now, i'm for a communist memorial that dwells on the dark aspect of communism and then capped it off with a symbol of hope, redemption, and renewal. but, when the goddess of liberty is the central symbol of this memorial, then we don't get the full measure of what communism was about. it's history as kitsch. indeed, how ironic that the communist memorial is so much like communist iconography. when 10 million ukrainian peasants were being starved and/or shot to death, soviets gave the world 'social realism' with rosy images of happy well fed soviet farmers and workers. they gave us the statue of the soviet man and woman proudly holding up the hammer and sickle. and, how have conservatives honored the memory of 100 million dead and many more enslaved under communism? some pretty tart called ms. liberty holding up a candle. this is anti-communism as American Idol or Ms. Universe. i can understand and forgive the chinese students for coming up with that kitschy statue. they didn't have much time nor material so had to improvise with whatever was available.
but, after so many years of fundraising and planning, this is the BEST that conservatives could come up with? this is more pathetic than the general conservative representation in art and culture. many people have remarked on how just about all the best artists are leftists or liberals. look at the best novels, best plays, best movies, etc, etc. all liberals and leftists. the so-called conservative film festival is a joke!! and now conservatives have shown to be inept at even commemorating history. the only thing conservatives are good at is talk radio, a magnet for windbags, ruffians, demagogues, and fools. american conservative historical sensibility is pure top 40 hits, tailgate parties, and kitsch. there is little in the sense of nuance, sobriety, tragedy, etc.

the most painful thing about the national review article is that it completely fails to mention or discuss how conservatives have been totally neglectful in spreading news and info on the
building of the anti-communist memorial. heck, i never heard about it. the article says that the people behind the idea hoped to raise about 100 million but raised only 1/2 million. and with such pocket change, all they could afford is a dinky little statue, and gee, we should be happy with that.
now, how is it that they were only able to raise 1/2 million? are conservatives really so stingy, amnesiac, unconcerned, and uncaring that they refused to donate to this cause?
or, were they afraid that if they donated, they would be marked as 'red-baiters' by liberal and leftwing jews who are so powerful in the media, academia, and culture? or, were they afraid of offending many people who still run russia and china--and other nations--who still have links to communism in one way or another? did rich conservatives fear that supporting the anti-communist memorial would hurt business dealings with people in china or russia in the future? while putin and hu jintao are not dogmatic communists or communists of any sort, their sense of national power is still linked to communist past. china still have the massive portrait of mao zedong in beijing. and putin revived the soviet national anthem and has made statements that wax romantic about the glory days of communist superpowerdom.
if this is why rich conservatives refused to donate to the fund, they can go to hell; they are a bunch of cowards and pussies.
but, i don't think that was the main reason why only 1/2 million was raised. it was because no one heard about it. why didn't conservative radio hosts, columnists, tv people, authors, etc, etc raise awareness on this issue? america is a nation of 300 million people. i'm sure that at least 50% of americans see communism for what it is. if americans had been told about this project, i'm sure donations would have come pouring in--least from the jewish community(because so many jews had been mixed up in the racket) and from the black community(as blacks only consider their oppression as the ONLY oppression) but there would have been great many donations from polish americans, hungarian americans, chinese/korean americans, czech americans, protestant christian americans, catholic americans, other religious groups, american military personnel and their families, and etc, etc, etc. schools could have been contacted on this project. even PBS might have been pushed to air a documentary on this project. in time, it would have been something most americans had heard about.
it's like the Million Man March. it had to be hyped by its promoters, then picked up by the national media, and become a topic of discussion for it to turn into a massive event it was.
but, where was the hype, promotion, and dissemination on this anti-communist project?
i would have donated $100. there would have been many who donated $10, $20, $30. there would have been some who donated $5000, $10,000, or more.
but, we never heard nothing about it. in time, 100 million could easily have been raised for the purpose of the museum. but, why didn't this happen?
i suspect the people behind the project sabotaged it from within. they went thru the motions only to subvert it. they didn't do anything to gain attention, promote its purpose and necessity, or to start a national debate and consciousness-raising. instead, they pretended to be busy, hustled about expecting to raise little, and then they just shrugged their shoulders and said that all they could manage was 1/2 million and that's that.
there is only two explanations for this pathetic outcome. they people behind the project are either the dumbest, lamest, most inept bunch of fools ever OR they started the project to make sure it went nowhere. if latter is true, it's like hiring police personnel to look into police corruption. i wonder if the people hired to promote the project were jewish. jews have proven themselves to be expert promoters of everything. they can make countless americans dole out hard earned cash for the dumbest cds, stupidest fashions, or lamest movies. and heaven knows jews can be tireless in extorting billions in cash from all those associated with nazi crimes in the past. jewish lawyers have earned 100 millions, actually billions, by suing everyone left and right in germany, switzerland, etc. yet, the people behind this project failed to raise more than 1/2 million? in all of america? you gotta be kidding! i'll bet girlscouts raise more selling cookies!! anyway, unless the facts are in, we must settle for the promoters of the memorial as being the most inept bunch of tards.

we don't know if the people behind this anti-communist project were jewish. indeed, maybe the failure to raise much cash is proof that they were not jews. only dumb goyim could be so inept at raising cash.
but, if they were jewish, why were so they pitiful in raising the necessary cash?
the obvious reason is that communism was essentially the brainchild of jews, or to be sure, radical leftwing jews. leftwing jews in this country are still romantically fixated to marxism, spiritually if not dogmatically. and liberal jews still feel some affinity with the radical aspect of jewish culture. they feel pride in the idea that jews are soooo passionate about 'truth, justice, equality, universality, etc, etc', which was what communism supposedly was, albeit in aggressive, ruthless, and violent form. while liberal jews will admit communism was bad, many of them still think the central values of communism are essentially good; the way they see it, it's not so much that communism failed humanity but humanity failed communism. since humanity is not good enough for a utopian ideology like communism, it's better to have capitalist bourgeois democracy since we are such imperfect creatures.
though clearly in the minority, there is a group of jewish conservatives--perhaps 8% of jewish population. these people are genuinely anti-communist hook, line, and sinker, but even they are not too keen on putting too much focus on the evils of communism because jews played too important a part in communism's rise and mass crimes. jewish conservatives fear that if people find out the truth about communism--that it was essentially a radical jewish phenomenon--alot of people will not be able distinguish between good jews and bad jews. they fear that alot of goyim will blame ALL jews for communism. this is especially worrisome because great many jews were involved with communism as its loyal adherents or as its fellow travelers.
liberal NY Times made apologies for communist regimes and aggression time and time again. when US was embroiled in wars with marxist uprisings, NY Times relies on reports by people like john lee anderson and herbert matthews--admirers of radical leftists.
when mao zedong died, NY Times ran a glowing obituary. even today, you can read in nicolas kristof--left/liberal jew--going on and on the good things chinese communists did. even liberal jews have been trying desperately to salvage something from communism. even while admitting horrible stuff happened, they try to balance it with the good. of course, leftwing and liberal jews don't do the same when they discuss nazism or italian Fascism. they only focus on the bad and never discuss the good things that happened under those regimes. liberal and leftwing jews are eager to show the far right as ALL bad while the far left is shown as wanting-to-do-good but having-done-bad-and-so-oh-well.
also, liberal and leftwing jews have never made us forget the evils of the far right, especially the kind of right that caused the greatest damage to jews and jewish interests. jews run most of the media and control the academia, and we hear over and over about the holocaust and such.
as for the high crimes of the far left, liberal and lefwing jews will discuss them in highbrow journals--read mostly by intellectuals--but rarely disseminate this truth to the public at large. so, the vast numbers of people who do not read book or academic journals don't know much about communist horrors but they know plenty about nazi horrors.
PBS will give us documentaries which explicitly dwell on the evils of nazism, but when it runs documentaries on a murderous slave state like north korea, it will try to be 'balanced' and 'fair'. there is little or no mention of millions who are forced to work, forced to starvation, brainwashed from cradle to become cold killing machines, etc.

liberal and leftwing jews shamelessly go on and on about the evils of nazism and the holocaust. and they don't only do this among themselves but have made sure that ALL OF US know about it and care about jews. meanwhile, jews have mostly neglected the horrors of communism; and even conservative jews have been mostly mum about the jewish role in communism as theorists, leaders, secret police, spies, scientists, propagandists, etc.
indeed, jewish conservatives are eager to portray jews mainly as victims of both nazism and communism. now, there were many jews--those who rejected communism--who were tragic victims of either or both. but, there were many many jews who joined in the communist cause and carried out great crimes against many nationalities. they didn't do it AS JEWS but there is no question that marxism and radical leftism were stamped with the cultural personality of jewishness. it's like even if alan dershawitz or woody allen were to convert to catholicism or buddhism, their mentality and outlook would still be jewish. and even if robert redford or clint eastwood were to convert to jews, they would still be anglo-goyish, not jewishy.
marx was not jewish in the religious sense but was very jewishy in personality. he was like a modern day hebrew prophet.
we must identify the 'national' character or the cultural traits of a people and study how that character or traits create or shape new thoughts.
though japan is modern and japanese people wear western clothes and use western technology, we still say that japanese have a village-clan mentality going back to feudal times.
similarly, it could be said that even modern secular jews have something in common with traditional jews. in terms of their outlook, psychology, personality, style, etc, they could still be jewishy.
now, all cultures have something robust/healthy/thoughtful and something dangerous/extreme/pathological. germanic national character can mean bach, beethoven, kaiser wilhelm, or hitler. jewish national character can mean moses, jesus, marx, and chomsky. now, there is no clear borderline between noble/healthy and evil/pathological. just look at sam peckinpah who represented both the good and bad of american character.
but, all cultures have a pathological element, and when that element takes over, you have nazi germany, militarist japan, marxist jew, islamic terrorist. whether its radical particularism--nazism or militarist shintoism--or radical universalism--marxism or islamicism--, there is a self-centered idea that you and your idea can redeem your race or save the world.

there is no way we can understand marxism--or the likes of chomsky--without understanding the jewish mind. no social idea is simply an idea. it is an outgrowth of certain cultural views, emotional prejudices, personalities, and intelligence. and when the idea is adopted by another people, it changes in relation to the national character of those who adopt it. this is why russian communism evolved away from jewish communism--as more and more russians entered the ranks of party hierarchy at the expense of jews--and why chinese communism was different from russian communism. but, all forms of communism were extensions of radical jewish ideology which was rooted in the jewish way of thinking in the Old Testament.
in the Old Testament, jews have a jealous god, the supposedly one and only god that tolerates no other gods and no idol worshipping. so, over 1000 of yrs, jews got used to the idea of ONE TRUTH that allows room for no other. even jesus belonged to this school. where he differed from other jews is in sharing this one and only god with all of mankind. and much of mankind did indeed adopt christianity, which means goyim had been ersatz universal jews. jews suffered under christians because (1) christ killer reputation and (2) there was mutual hostility and distrust of the outsiders: jews felt that the ONE and ONLY god belonged only to them, not to the filthy impure goyim, and christians found jews to be greedy and stingy for not sharing the universal jewish god. christians didn't see jews as proper children of god, and jews didn't see any legitimacy to the chrstian claim that a messiah had come and blessed non-jews with divine love. as far as jews were concerned, christ was a phony and christians were NOT the children of god but disgraceful usurpers of genuine godly truth. but, as time passed, jews realized they were always gonna be outnumbered by christians and goyim. it's one thing to be a proud jew, but not much fun when you are outnumbered and get crushed by goy scum everywhere.
so, jews thought about assimilating with the christians and goyim. but, many could not go along with this. there was the problem of distrust in some nations of even converted jews. but more importantly, jews had inherited a mentality that stressed the unique brilliance, specialness, blessedness, etc of the jewish people. it just didn't sit well with jewish personality to fit in with the majority and become lame and square. IF jews were to join in with the rest of humanity, it had to be on jewish terms. jews had missed the boat when the jewish jesus arrived. maybe jews shouldn't have missed that opportunity. maybe all jews should there and then have converted to christianity and led the christian movement. but, instead, most jews objected to christianity and were persecuted christians. in time, christianity was adopted by pagans, and its leaders came from formerly pagan ranks. in time, christianity came to be anti-jewish.
so, when marxism arrived on the scene, alot of jews didn't wanna miss out again. again, there was a universalist ideology(or secular theology). it was created by a jew. it preached universalism but its rules were set forth by jews. its leading figures, thinkers, and such would be heavily jewish. prior to marxism, jews' only hope of assimilation was to melt into the nations, cultures, and traditions of goyim. with marxism, assimilation was reversed--everyone else had to melt into the vision of the world as created by jews. with marxism, jews were the kings and emperors of a new world, a new heaven on earth. they held the crown, staff, and the key. and all of humanity would be allowed--by force if necessary, which was always--to enter into the new vision of universalism. jews, who had fervently been the most particularistic people in europe suddenly became the most universalistic. from extreme particularism they went to extreme universalism... except that their new universalism preserved the old jewish notion of the Single-Unifying-Truth. yahweh said destroy all false idols. marxism said destroy all false ideols(ideologies).
Old Testament said there is one god/truth and one god/truth only. marxism said there is only one social truth and one social truth only.
Old Testament spoke of a chosen people. marxism was led by a chosen brotherhood of radical neo-prophets.
Old Testament said divine justice is more important than human lives. if god needs to smite entire peoples to set the world straight, punish the wicked, and put the world on the correct road, then god must do what he's gotta do.
similarly, marxism said 'social justice' is more important than human lives; marx's ideas take precedence over lives. ends justify means. so, if you gotta kill millions of class enemies, backward peasants, and so on, ya gotta do what ya gotta do in order to create a better world. in both judaism and marxism, the idea or theory matters more than humanity.
both the Old Testament god and marx claimed to love humanity but on condition that all of humanity strictly obey the laws laid down by god or marx. it was never love of humanity as it really was--that kind of forgiving love came only with christianity. even though marxism is universalist--like christianity--, it preserved the Old Testament's strictness regarding social rules and behavior. like islam, marxism was always an aggressive, ruthless, and intolerant form of universalism at its very textual core. there is no sense of humility in marxism, no sense that there is yet much to learned about history, science, humanity, and morality; instead, there is only the sense that marx figured it all out. marx, of course, never claimed to be God, but he claimed to know the full truth of what moved history and affected human behavior; he was not god, but as there was no god and only material reality, the man who understood the full breadth of material mechanism of history was a material god; marx saw himself as such and his blind followers treated him and his teachings as divine objects of worship.
but, judaism is rich and complex. eventually, its god grows wiser and accepts that people will be what they are--a bunch of morons. so, god pulls away from human affairs and takes on more of a live-and-let-live attitude. god comes to accept and forgive people for all their failings. and this set the grounds for the arrival of the figure of jesus who not only universalized the old testament but transformed god from a domineering father to a forgiving uncle.

anyway, it's a total disgrace that the anti-communist memorial has finally come to this: some kitschy statue modeled on some rickety sculpture set up during the tianenmen square protests, which, by the way, wasn't necessarily against communism but against authoritarianism.
also, as terrible as the outcome of those protests were--brutal crackdown costing 100s or maybe 1000s of lives--, that event was hardly the worst associated with communism; if anything, it was a picnic compared to stuff like the mass killings and deportations under lenin, the great famine under stalin/leftwing jews, killing fields of cambodia, boat people of vietnam, madness of sandero luminoso, mengistu's forced collectivazation and mass starvations, and the madness that is north korea. and in china, the worst excesses of communism were the initial land reforms(5 million dead), great leap forward(30 million dead), cultural revolution(80% of chinese cultural treasures destroyed, millions dead), etc.
but after such mass crimes, what do we have to commemorate the evils of communism? some thirdrate statue not even worthy for a disney theme park. why not have mickey mouse by its side?

the jews and anti-rightists have been smart to remind us over and over about the evils of nazism. as a result of their efforts, most americans associate evil at its worst with the white-far-right. and, jews have created this general mindset in a more or less dignfied manner, as if this historical awareness is merely humanitarian, not partisan or political. nazism has come to symbolize evil for EVERYONE, EVERY RACE, ALL TIMES.
in contrast, people on the right have been negligent in spreading the truth about communism. also, they haven't been very smart or courageous about it. consider books or documentaries on the holocaust or nazi evil, and there's a sheen of serious scholarship beyond mere politicking or ideological squabbling. but, most anti-communist literature or films have been blatantly political or ideological, making the whole thing just seem like right-wing propaganda.
take ann coulter's Treason. she's so eager to score political points that no one except her clones and mindless fans can take her book seriously. in contrast, many books written on mccarthy and red-baiting come across as scholarly, serious, and sober. now, these leftist books are, in their own way, just as lopsided and propagandistic, but they know how to cover up their ideological tracks by semblance of scholarliness.
of course, the lopsided public memory on the holocaust/bolshocaust has a lot to do with the fact that in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, jews pretty much took over the major institutions of information and entertainment and academia. and, they've used these institutions and forums to make all of think that jews are oh-so-wonderful and those who dare criticize anything or anyone jewish is an 'anti-semite'. and they've shown so many images in film and on tv of the word 'anti-semite' associated with images of the holocaust that we've all been made to think that any critical view of jews means that we must be closet nazis. so, we've all been afraid to be honest and forthright about jews. jews are so powerful that they've made us afraid to even think that they are powerful. now, THAT is power. most powerful people just manage to make others obey them. but, jews don't only make us obey them but command us to believe that we are not obeying them but being pro-jewish out of our own volition.

one of the problems of the anti-communist memorial is it tries to cover too much. communism has lasted for 70 yrs in the USSR. it is still very much alive in cuba and north korea. and there have been many crimes and mass murders. yet, they took place at different times and in different nations. to sum up all this madness with a single memorial dilutes the horror of what communism really stood for.
the holocaust memorial is about the holocaust, not about all the evils committed by all rightwing authoritarian states.
similarly, it would have made more sense to have a series of memorials on a shared site that focus on a certain great crime under communism. and it would have raised more money from many different ethnic groups.
imagine a site whose center has a sculpture or memorial symbolizing all the suffering under communism everywhere. and around the sculpture, there can be memorials to some of the greatest horrors that took place under communism: lenin's mass executions, stalin's great famine, the red terror, mao's mass killings, killing fields in cambodia, boat people of vietnam, madness of north korea, etc. each of these sub-memorials could have been funded by donations from various ethnic groups. for example, there can be a memorial on polish suffering under communism, and you know that many polish-americans and poles abroad would have given massive funds for this. and for the hungarian memorial, many hungarian-americans and hungarians abroad would have given alot of donations. and for the korean memorial, great many korean-americans would have donated money.
jews support the holocaust memorial and the state of israel because both are 'nationalist'. they are about jews. jews are interested in jews.
similarly, nationalism should have been one of the main appeals of the anti-communist memorial. it's funny that the very people who opposed marxist internationalism should now be using internationalist symbolism to illustrate the horrors of communism. communism was a crime against many peoples, nations, and cultures. then, it makes sense to appeal to the national pride and anger of many people who suffered under communism.
surely, a polish-american is mainly angry at communism for what it did to poland. a hungarian american is mainly angry at communism for what it did to hungary. and a chinese-american would be angry at communism for what it did to china. most people react to events personally or nationally, not universally or internationally.
jews hate nazism while having a soft spot for communism because of the jewish relation to both: nazism was totally and murderously anti-jewish while communism had once been the ideology of many (secular)jews. indeed, most jewish intellectual types turned against the USSR only in the 40s and 50s due to stalin's increasingly anti-semitic policies. jews rejected communism because it was becoming anti-jewish. but, when soviet communism had been controlled largely by jews and killing millions of non-jews, many jews loved communism; it meant power and glory to jews.
so, the lack of nationalist appeal in the making of the anti-communist memorial is a real pity.
yes, most americans are decent enough to care for all of humanity but they really feel great passions for their own kind. americans care mostly about americans. and among americans, black americans care most for themselves, asian-americans care most for themselves, jewish americans feel most for themselves, hispanic americans feel most for themselves, muslim americans feel most for themselves, and so on. the two exceptions among americans when it comes to special recognition are jews and blacks. yes, we ALL feel obligated to love jews and blacks because the jewish dominated media and academia have been telling us over and over that both jews and blacks are totally innocent lambs of history done wrong by evil white christians.
few people know about the connection between communism and jewish power. few people know that mussolini and franco, while brutal in their own ways, were saints compared to lenin, trotsky, stalin, and mao. indeed, it was hitler who was the psycho among the revolutionary right(fascism stood for revolutionary rightism as opposed to monarchism which stood for reactionary rightism).

the total failure to build an anti-communist memorial worthy of its name is, i believe, the result of either rightwing ineptness or jewish influence. it was either direct jewish influence or the fear of the jewish hand. indeed, many people who wanna speak on matters that directly or indirectly involve the jews get all nervous and afraid. they tone down their views so as not to 'offend' jewish sensibility. now, i agree that the holocaust was a great crime against the jews. but, it's equally true that many many jews--in the USSR, europe, and the US--were involved in one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century--communism. yet, we can't talk about this.
we must be careful not to offend jewish sensibility. this is like all of us having to tread carefully on the topic of holocaust lest we offend german sensibilities.
if we discuss nazism as we discuss communism, we would blame ONLY hitler for the murder of 6 million jews. we would have to pretend that all the germans who helped him were totally innocent. when we discuss communism, we only blame stalin. it's as though stalin alone killed 20 million. but, his orders were followed by others. and stalin's policies and ideas were formulated by others. who were the people who came up with communism? who were the people who set up the totalistic system? who were the people who headed the secret police? who were the people who forbade all freedoms for the masses? who were the people who stole all of private property for everyone but themselves who lived with privilege? who fed stalin all those evil ideas? the fact is leftwing jews did all of that. yes, there were many latvians, russians, poles, and others in the movement, but they were generally followers, not leaders of the movement. the people who cooked up communism and led it during its crucial period were leftwing jews. even during most of stalin's rule, most leftwing jews thrived, enjoyed special powers and privileges, and killed millions. just read yuri slezkine's 'the jewish century'.
and these leftwing jews of USSR tried to spread communism thru brutal means through all of europe. and they were helped across the seas by american leftwing jews. the fact is the majority of american jewish intellectual were communist, pro-communist, or communist-sympathizing. they only turned against communism when USSR turned against the jews. when USSR was killing millions of kazakhis, tatars, ukrainians, volga/baltic germans, greeks, poles, etc, etc, leftwing and even liberal jews in the US didn't give a damn. they cheered on their leftwing jewish brethren in the USSR; they spied for the USSR; they did everything to subvert america. it was only when stalin turned on jews that jews in the US turned against soviet communism. even so, many jews in the US in the 60s turned to other forms of radicalism; many cheered for mao, ho chi minh, castro and che guevara. even today, we have people like barbara walters kissing castro, swooning over hugo chavez. we have liberal jew steven soderbergh glorifying stalinist-maoist che guevara while presenting US as an evil imperialist nation. yes, this is the sickness of the leftwing jew, but we can't say anything about it because the liberal jew run media and academia have brainwashed all of us into believing that jews are totally blameless, totally wonderful, totally saintly, and would never hurt a fly.
in reality, jews were not only one of the great victims of the 20th century but one of the great criminals. no, not all jews. but, not all germans were guilty of nazism but it seems okay to blame all germans, and indeed every fresh generation of germans are made to feel guilt over the holocaust. but, jews have never faced up to their role in bolshocaust.
germans have come to terms with the fact that while there is much greatness in german culture and heritage, there was something dark and pathological in teutonism which led to nazism. but, jews never looked into their own culture and came to terms with its pathological sickness. the irony is that many leftwing jews, by abandoning judaism and embracing communism, may have felt that they were breaking with the evil inherent in jewishness--tribalism, irrationailsm, superstitionism, stingy moneygrubbism, etc--embracing humanity and universal justice. but in fact, when they rejected judaism in its entirety, they were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. and in adopting marxism, jews were perpetrating the most dangerous aspect of judaism--moral arrogance, intellectual contempt, ideological intolerance, etc.
of course, jews were not alone in this. soviet communism was the mixture of the worst aspects of both jewish and russian(and georgian)traditions. it was a blend of jewish mono-centrism, tsarism, and georgian(stalin and beria)clan chiefdom.
and mao was a neo-emperor of sorts in the imperial tradition. no matter how one pretends to break with the past, the mental habits of the past persist in new forms. mao claimed to be a new man in a new order, but he ruled like a feudal chinese despot over his imperial subjects.
similarly, the feminist movement in the US, despite its anti-christian and anti-traditionalist agendas, is a continuation of the puritanical protestant social activism mixed with jewish talmudic hair-splitting-ism. traditional feminism was an outgrowth of christian social activism, and the new feminism of the 60s led by ugly hags bela abzug and betty friedan was a pussified branching off of jewish radical intellectualism. friedan and her ugly sisters felt even 'progressive' movement was mostly led by men, so for (jewish)women to have their say, they must have a world of their own. in a way, new feminism started out as a selfish movement for the empowerment of jewish women who were all brains and no looks. without looks, they felt miserable. so they could only be happy with ideas and intellectual bragging. yet, most of the intellectual spots were held by men. so, friedan decided to start a sexual war and then lead it. she made all women feel as though they were slaves. she compared american housewives with holocaust victims(funny she didn't compare them with victims of communism). the liberal and leftwing jew run media and academia picked up on these ideas and spread them far and wide. supported by jewish media and academic aid, she became a superstar despite her intellectual obnoxiousness.

anyway, back to the anti-communist memorial. i say shame on all those involved. why didn't they play on the element of nationalism? why only go for a unified memorial on all the victims of communism when the memorial could have been both universal and nationalist? cuban-americans alone would have donated millions if one of the submemorials honored the victims of castro. just imagine a series of memorials shaped like stone henge. each of the stones in the circle would symbolize the nation crushed by communism. and at the center of the circle, you could have a heap of human skulls and bones and on top of that, the head of marx.

such is more important than ever as marxism is making a comeback. the fall of the USSR was only a temporary setback for marxism. in the long run, it was a boon for marxism.
remember when the christian roman empire fell. many thought it was the end of christianity, a complete discrediting of chrisitian values and power. but, st. augustine wrote 'city of god' and saved and strengthened christianity by arguing that the fall of roman empire was not necessarily a bad thing. with its fall, christianity can start anew without being associated with a brutal and corrupt civilization. as long as the USSR existed, communism was associated with all its crimes. but, with its fall, marxism can be washed clean of its association with the evil empire.
also, as the media and academia--run by liberal and leftwing jews--suppress the truth of communist horrors, the young ones have no idea of how evil it was. meanwhile, every new generation is told over and over that nazism was evil and jews were poor noble victims of the 20th century. never mind that the USSR was a leftwing jewish gangsta paradise. never mind that many jews in the US spied for the USSR and did everything in their power to subvert anglo-american power. today, liberal and leftwing jews rule america like they had once ruled the USSR. they control our collective memory, shape our moral sense, and determine our preferences. why does an average american think that a negro or a jew is wonderful while having such a low opinion of southern white christians? hollywood, public schools, tv, news, etc, controlled by jews. jews favor negroes because jews wanna be associated with another victim group. jews are rich and powerful but don't wanna be seen as rich and powerful. a liberal jew wants to be a billionaire but seen by the public as a friend of the poor and needy. so the liberal jew maintains this bullshi* image of jewish-black alliance. of course, many blacks were not so eager to play along with this charade. but, now jews have their 'house nigger' in barack obama, the product of jewish agitator alinsky's theories and harvard law school--headquarters of main liberal/leftist jewish thought in america. obama is the liberal jews' boy.

anyway, the fall of USSR will be advantageous for marxism in the future. marxism will no longer be associated with a giant bloated evil empire. thru the che guevara myth perpetrated by hollywood jews and thru stuff like pan's labyrinth, we are already seeing a new generation of kids being brainwashed into thinking leftists were a noble freedom fighting breed.
also, most artists are leftist and liberal, not least because many of them are jewish.
but, even the non-jewish ones get their social and political ideas--if not their talent--from books, tv, schools, etc, controlled by liberal and leftwing jews.
no one is born a leftist artist; he is made into a leftist artist or entertainer by the forces and influences around him. an artist born in the 16th century was invariably a christian. an artist born in 18th china was invariably a confucianist. and an artist born today will most likely be influenced by public schools, pbs, npr, art departments run by leftists, etc, etc.
so, they are turned leftists.
the brilliant cultural coup by the left is that they've fooled alot of artistic and entertainment folks into thinking that leftism stands for 'freedom' and/or 'justice'. never mind that marxist nations allowed no artistic or cultural freedom. as long as artists are told that leftism stands for 'freedom', art doesn't really have to be free. who needs legal freedom when you have spiritual freedom? according to leftism, an artist under capitalist may be legally free to do what he wants but as he's a capitalist slave of the marketplace, he's never free. in contrast, an artist under leftist rule may not be allowed to do everything he wishes, but as leftism stands for the 'liberation' of mankind, he's 'free' even if he's not free. it's like telling someone that he's free as long he stays inside the prison because being on the outside means being oppressed by the unstable forces of the world; how great to be liberated from uncertain freedom.

leftists have also recruited alot of artists by arguing that leftism stands for 'justice'. this is a more dangerous notion because 'justice' is used to justify suppression of freedom. notice that a lot of film and literary journals are not much bothered by censorship within cuba. communist censorship often gets a free pass or a slap on the wrist because the leftist logic is that suppression of freedom is being enforced in the name of 'social justice'.
if pinochet clamps down on free press, it must be condemned in no uncertain manner because it means suppression of freedom in the name of social 'injustice'. but if castro shuts down ALL newspapers or if hugo chavez takes over all the tv stations, well, that's not so bad because it's in the name of 'social justice'. a socialist who's for people's interests are taking power away from evil capitalists. leftists and liberals in the west made apologies for lenin's repression, and not much has changed since then when we see so many liberals make apologies yr after yr for castro and chavez's increasing thuggery. the idea is that if castro allows freedom, capitalists and other scum will bring down the revolution; therefore, for the revolution to continue, repression is a necessary evil(recently, there was a PBS documentary--called WideAngle--on cuban boxers, and it shed negative light on cuban boxers who defected to the US; they were shown in a thuggish way in slo-motion and were described as having chosen money over social justice; they were judases. at the end of the documentary, the narrator said cuban boxers are torn between 'fighting to for pay or fighting for the revolution'. how about fighting as a free person vs. fighting as a puppet of castro's vanity? oh no, the documentarians are too much in love with castro and che's vision of cuba.
we are to believe that all this repression and brainwashing of young kids are justified cuz the
'revolution' is just so sacred. this is all the more funny when the so-called revolutionary athletes in cuba are, indeed, professionals who enter sports cuz they want privilege and glory like any other athlete. for all the rhetoric of being selfless, they are all selfish.
and it's funnier when we consider that these documentarians who support castro's 'revolution' and repression of cubans would never tolerate such conditions for themselves or their own children; 'revolution' is always for OTHER people, not for western liberals and leftists. barbara walters wants her limitless freedom and wealth; 'revolutionary press' is only for those journalists living under castro).

marxism will also gain greater currency in the coming yrs because capitalism's impact on culture and social values have really become ugly, disgusting, putrid, sick, demented, etc. never mind that liberal jews are behind most of this rot. they will make billions off of this rot, and then blame it on american capitalism as a whole--instead of on themselves--, and in this moral vacuum, more and more young people will seek 'spiritual' answers thru hipsterish radicalism as seen in matrix movies, V for Vendetta, motorcycle diaries, pan's labyrinth, children of men, and the coming Che Guevara movie.

and what do conservatives have to answer for all this? what do conservatives have to say about the ideology that killed a 100 million and enslaved over a billion people and robbed them of freedom, property, dignity, individuality, etc? a kitschy statue.
memorials commemorating a handful of murdered civil rights activists in the south have a greater sense of tragedy, injustice, and dignity than this memorial which is supposed to honor a 100 million dead. and national review is gloating over this. what a bunch of tards that magazine has.

at any rate, what we need is for conservatives to go into documentary filmmaking and make stuff for PBS and other outlets and venues. most peoples--oldies and youngies--get their general history from watching History channel and PBS--at least most people with mainstream interest in history. and conservatives are represented only in print journals and talk radio. SERIOUS people don't listen to talk radio. and there are far more leftist journals than conservative journals. worse, most non-political journals(on music, movies, art, fashion, sports, tv, pop culture, women's stuff, etc) tilt toward liberalism and leftism. and many of them are owned and run by liberal and leftist jews.
conservatives must not only make documentaries and focus more of their attention on tv and but also make sure that certain anti-communist books become common reading material for young folks growing up. how about an abridged version of gulag archipelago? how about the books of robert conquest? an abridged version of 'black book of communism'? what does it say of the right that some of the most damning books on the left have been by leftists--orwell, koestler, and the authors of 'black book of communism'. even leftist anti-communism has been more thoughtful, brilliant, effective, and intelligent than rightwing anti-communism which has often been stupid, pigheaded, demagogic, boorish, and imbecile.
there is an element of intellectual seriousness and thought among leftists and liberals--at least amongst jews--lacking among conservatives who often come across as smug, overly comfy in their positions, or just pigheaded. the recent masterful book on the cultural revolution--'mao's last revolution'--is also by leftist. if rush limbaugh were to write an anti-communist book, could anyone take it seriously?

also, conservatives must commemorate the Great Famine, the Killing Fields, and other such matters year after year like the holocaust is commemorated year after year. and just as holocaust appeals to jewish 'national' interests, conservatives must engage the 'national' righteous rage of americans whose people had been crushed by communism. conservatives must appeal to polish-americans and their experience under communism, hungarian-americans and their experience under communism, cuban-americans and their experience under communism, vietnamese-americans and their experience under communism, etc.
(indeed, there is such lack of sympathy for cuban-american anger in the US because most americans have little idea of what castro did to them. even when jews get really obnoxious, we forgive them cuz we know about the holocaust. but, unless the american people learn about what cuban-americans went thru, cuban-americans will only seem boorish--whereas even a boorish jew wins sympathy cuz we figure his anger is about anti-semitism).
the cumulative effects of all these annual commemorations will expose communism for what it was: a murderous ideology.
sure, marxists and leftists admit that communism did commit horrendous crimes BUT they say communism was still for 'social justice' and equality; they say the crime of communism was it was too zealous in trying to be good and in the process ended up killing alot of people. it's said that fascism went out of its way to do evil and did just that. communism ended up committing acts of evil by trying to do too much good in too short of time. what kind of bullcocky is this?
first off, fascists thought they were doing good no less than commies did. also, other than hitler's mad racial ideas, fascism was in every way far more humane than communism. how can anyone say franco or mussolini were worse than lenin, trotsky, and stalin?
also, what kind of 'social justice' is one where all freedom is abolished? how can there be good without freedom? communism says man doesn't deserve to be free cuz freedom only leads to exploitation of man by man. so, man must be imprisoned in a worker's paradise and do as told. this is 'social justice'?
and they brainwash you to make you into 'new man'. and they shoot you if you if you disagree. some justice. and what good is forced equality? and how is forced equality socially just? if all students are given a "C" no matter the variations in performance, is that socially just?
what's most exasperating about the history of communism is that jews, a people who were best at capitalism and benefitted most from it, often supported communism. many jewish fathers who made a shitload of money sent their kids to universities where they came out as commies. in some cases, the kids were reacting against their capitalist fathers. in some cases, the capitalist jewish fathers felt shame for their moneygrubbingness and wanted their sons to use family wealth to promote radical leftism. even in the US, many capitalist jews raised their children to be radical leftist lawyers, professors, etc.
in many cases, it was the wish of the jewish capitalist father that his kids turn out commie or commie-loving. just look at hollywood. you have lots of superduper rich jew millionaries and billionaires. but, they raise their kids to revere people like marx, che guevara, castro, hugo chavez, betty friedan, and the black panthers. it's like the capitalist jews wanna have the cake and eat it too. on the one hand, they wanna 'moneygrub' all they want and be fabulously rich. on the other hand, they wanna pose as cutting edge radicals at the forefront of social revolution. what a bunch of sick fuc*s.