Stalin was an ally of the forces for "freedom and democracy." Finland was the ally of Fascism. Sounds pretty cut and dry - this was the "truth" that Churchill promoted, while all his attention was focused on the destruction of Hitler, the murderer. But while doing so, was he helping another murderer do the same thing as Hitler was about to? It was only after the war that the truth became obvious: Finland was not Fascist and Stalin was not fighting for freedom and democracy. But what was done was done and the West had to live with the results of allying with Stalin and letting him have his way with surrounding nations, in contradiction of the Atlantic Charter that was signed by the Soviets. This agreement was to confirm that no territorial acquisitions were to be made by the combatants. Nobody is to profit from war. Unfortunately the Allies let all that go down the drain. Conferences were held to spell out the terms of peace. These conferences were used by Stalin to enslave Europe while everyone was busy dancing in the streets and proclaiming that Europe has been set
"free." Churchill and Roosevelt were spent forces, both were tired of the war and just wanted peace. They were willing to comply with Stalin's demands for control of lands that did not belong to his people. They were willing to help Stalin commit genocide.
Why not cast away all the Rooseveltian, and Churchillian propaganda
for a moment and look at the other side - the forgotten side. The side they
didn't want you to see. Countries such as Finland that barely escaped,
were saddled with huge debts which amounted to a ransom for freedom.
Others became vassals of a brutal socialist dictatorship and lost
their freedom. The focus of fighting evil, that Churchill clearly had at
the beginning, seemed to vanish simply because Finland was not of strategic importance to Britain. Was the cost
of beating Hitler too great? Was this "cost-benefit" deal of trading millions of innocent lives for beating
Hitler justifiable just because it served the interests of Britain? What about the interests of Finland, Baltics States, Poland etc. No. The interests of Britain was paramount. And this interest became muddled and tangled up with the interests of a heartless murderer - Stalin.
United States and Britain delivered all of Eastern Europe and part of Finland into the hands of Joseph Stalin and the communists. Stalin enslaved half of Europe, and
these leaders claimed they had set Europe free! The last decade of the last
century saw increased liberty for these Eastern European and Baltic nations. Eastern part of Finland remains held hostage by Russia along with other territorial gains, thanks to the Allies. These are hard facts to digest, but they are true, and they are something we must face.
Churchill's shame and fears
Stalin Redraws World's Borders
Fate of Eastern Europe
Karl Marx in Hell
Immigration and Crime Rates
Post War Eastern Europe and Finland
Plaschke, Chicago Tribune American, 1945
The eight-day Yalta Conference was held
under extreme war-time secrecy at the Russian Crimean coast resort at Yalta on the Black
Sea. (February 1945) The conference defined the Allied powers' policy towards Germany and
gave the Soviets two-fifths of pre-war Poland after England swore to defend the country.
One-tenth of Finland and parts of many other countries had already contributed to Soviet
expansion. The results of the conference were defined under the following headings: The
defeat of Germany, The occupation and Control of Germany, Reparation by Germany, United
Nations Conference, Declaration on Liberated Europe, Poland, Yugoslavia, Meetings of
Foreign Secretaries, Unity for Peace as for War. The meeting was a sham, with no input by
the affected countries. Reconsidering Yalta FDR and Yalta
In his letter of April 29, 1945 to Stalin,
Churchill reveals his guilt of how he helped Stalin set up his Communist bloc: "There
is not much comfort in looking into the future where you and the countries you dominate
plus the Communist parties in many other states are all drawn up on one side and those who
rallied to the English-speaking nations and their associates are on the other. It is quite
obvious that their quarrel would tear the world to pieces and all of us leading men on
either side who had anything to do with that would be shamed before history."
Churchill nor Roosevelt would be allowed by their own fates to negotiate the final
agreements on the future of Europe at Potsdam. Roosevelt died April 12, 1945 and Churchill
was replaced by Attlee July 28 when he lost the general election during the Potsdam
Conference (Berlin Conference) of July 17, 1945. The big three at Potsdam were: Attlee,
Truman and Stalin. Truman was new in the job. Like Roosevelt, he did not fully understand
how cunning Stalin, who thought Truman was "worthless," really was.
Stalin Redraws World's Borders
The war was won
and freedom reigns over all of Europe, or does it? Not really; this
"freedom" was just western propaganda aimed at convincing the world that
the job had been done, when in fact, they were caving in to Stalin - who
was as bad or worse than Hitler. Stalin got his share for defeating Hitler:
the Baltics, Karelia and Eastern Europe. The borders of 1939 would
not be reinstated in Europe.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1946 stated that Russia grew considerably:
"In the years between 1939 and 1945 the USSR expanded its territory considerably. It
annexed in Europe the three Baltic republics of:
Estonia (18,353 sq. mi = 47,534.05 sq. km, population 1,126,413)
Latvia (20,056 sq. mi = 51,944.8 sq. km, population 1,950,502)
Lithuania (22,959 sq. mi = 59,463.54 sq. km, population 2,879,070)
(16,173 sq. mi = 41,887.88 sq. km, population c. 500,000 - including the writer's parent's property)
(77,703 sq. mi = 201,249.8 sq. km, population c. 12,775,000)
(19,300 sq. mi = 49,986.77 sq. km, population 3,500,000)
In 1945 Soviet Union added to its territory the Carpatho-Ukraine, (12,617 sq. mi =
32,677.88 sq. km, population 725,357)
From Germany, the northern part of East Prussia.
(c. 7,000 sq. mi = 18129.92 sq. km, population c. 1,000,000)
From Japan, Karafuto (South Sakhalin)
(13,935 sq. mi = 36,091.40 sq. km, 1935 population 331,943)
From Japan, Chushima or Kuril Islands (47 islands of 3,944 sq. mi. = 10214.91 sq. km)
From Outer Mongolia, Tannu-Tuva.
(64,000 sq mi = 165,759.2 sq. km) Became Tuvanian Autonomous Region.
Further, since Germany attacked USSR, the German Volga
A.S.S.R. was abolished and the inhabitants dispersed in Siberia."
While Churchill was defending Jews from Hitler's death
camps, Eastern Europeans were being turned over to Stalin's death camps.
Many non-Soviet citizens were among them, such as fleeing Czarist Cossacks
shipped back to Jugoslavia and shot. Russian POW's and ordinary Soviet
citizens were sent back; Russians of Finnish decent, who lived in Russia,
had to be shipped back. Stalin wanted all his people back so he could kill
them. Churchill complied, even using his troops to do the dirty work. It
was unbelievable, there was nobody to stand up against Stalin and protect
the vulnerable in lands bordering the Soviet Union. In fact they were
turned over to Stalin at gun-point in many cases.
In his book "The Minister and the Massacre" and "The
secret betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, he reveals the horror of the forced
repatriations to the USSR by the British and Americans. Most of it is his original
research into the cover-up. "If the moral and political wisdom of the so-called
civilized and Christian West is of such a kind, then God help Europe and the world"
says Colonel Tatalovic, in response to a Chetnik staff officer's queries. Between
1944 and 1947 the Western Allies handed over to Stalin more than two million Soviet
citizens. Separating Europe into freedom and slavery is what Roosevelt called "free
Europe." His errors cost millions of lives and displacement of people - genocide. But
all we hear about is how he defeated Hitler; how he helped save a few western European countries,
and Jews. This was "Saving Europe?"
Fate of Eastern Europe
Lists of people to be killed or imprisoned were made by
local Communist traitors in Finland (Leino), Czechoslovakia (Gottwald), Hungary (Rakosi),
DDR (Pieck), Bulgaria (Dimitrov), Poland, Romania, Albania, and Yugoslavia. The first step
was to install a Communist minister of the interior (government police) and to infiltrate
all political parties, and then to take each one over by force. The plan succeeded in all
above countries except Finland. This answers the question most people in the West have:
was Finland part of the "Soviet Union?" Of course the answer is "no."
Although there has always been Communist traitors in Finland who have wanted to take away
Finnish independence and join their Russian Communist brethren, this never materialized. I
suppose they dreamed that if this happened, they would be in charge. However history shows
that they were wrong and most likely they would have ended up with a hole in the back of
Lists of Finns who would have been killed or sent to Siberia
have been made public. The lists are very long - for example: (Notice that if you are
educated, the communists wanted you dead.)
Aalto, Pertti 1917, yo
"ylioppilas," (high school graduate) Hki (Helsinki),
Arvela, Jorma Joonas Emil 1914
metsänhoitaja, (forester) Taivalkoski
Arvela, Arvo Väinö 1910 Lääkäri (physician) Hki
Harviainen Mauri Mikael 1914 Pappi (Lutheran minister) Kuopio
Hundreds, thousands of people would be killed or
sent to Siberia by evil people, some of whom mistakenly think that is the way to create a
better world - a socialist paradise. To them, the end justifies the means, and the means as usual becomes a way of life. The Slavs are a
rather rough type of people anyway, discipline is a harsh thing amongst them, and their
vassals. Children are "broken" by schools and then in the military. Mistakes are
punished severely, often by execution, and life becomes a privilege bestowed by the Party.
People become cattle, to be fenced in and owned by the "State Cattle Co." Due to
fear, action becomes paralyzed, alcoholism consumes the population. The system collapses,
but not until millions suffer and die needlessly. This is done for a desperate, illusive,
dream of Utopia. The Communist ideal has been thoroughly disproved and discredited. Yet people like Obama want to create a Socialist Utopia in the United States. What is this? Are the American people so easily tricked into Socialism? The times are right for it - low economy due to jobs being shipped overseas, the children have been removed from family influence and put under the influence of the state...and so on, including removal of God from school and all public buildings, and destruction of our Christian roots. That is what happened in the USSR! Time to wake up.
The Finnish economy has
always been the envy of Russia, whose people were not capable of developing such
prosperity, and definitely not under communism.
The Communist cannot understand how Finland can prosper like it does. He asks:
"how is it possible," since the workers are "exploited?" How is it
possible that their store shelves are overflowing, and ours are almost always empty? How
can the exploited go around driving nice American, Swedish, German or Japanese cars when
we have to wait years for a Lada? The exploited eat in fine restaurants, or McDonald's,
and shop in megastores overflowing with food, while we socialists stand in lines for a
loaf of bread? Have we missed something?
The Locust People of a New Russia
When locusts swarm and move as a unit, they are spurred forward by the locusts behind them, who nip at them every chance they get. If one should fail to move with the masses, they get eaten up by the others behind them. Isn't this what the people of Russia had become: locust people? They can't even escape it in war. If one should fail to move forward with the others, the NKVD shoot them. This is what happened when Russia attacked Finland. They were forced to move forward. What a predicament the people of Russia put themselves into when they killed the Czar and his family.
This is a worker's paradise? Not likely. But you have to admit that while the
people are standing in lines, they are substantially under control. If you have any doubts
about which is better, (millions still believe in socialism, but it comes in fancy
disguises today, even "Democracy") socialism or capitalism, you don't have to
argue with me about politics. You can ask a person who has lived under both, and any fancy
utopian ideals will vanish very quickly. Some people you could talk to are: Poles, Czechs,
Hungarians, Mongolians, Estonians and so on. Ask them how they were treated 1) by the
Russians 2) by the Communists, and if they would volunteer for more. Unfortunately there
are millions who cannot speak for themselves for they have been in their graves for a long
Some feel that capitalism is destroying the
planet, while socialism is friendly, not only to people, but also to the environment. Not
true. To clean up the environment you need money - lots of money. Only capitalism, (small
businesses) the people friendly variety not dominated by multinationals, (mostly bad)
produces enough surplus money to make a significant dent in pollution. A lack of funds and
fear prevents positive action in a socialist country, most of which are ecological
disasters. Likewise, socialism destroys minorities, for example the Soviet minority
policy. Just take a trip to Russia. Socialism is the most vicious, brutal, godforsaken
ideology on the planet, which promises the world but delivers slavery and misery. It is
evil through and through, but puts up a glorious front which appeals to the lazy and
radical elements. Man's arrogant system that was invented thousands of years ago when he decided
that he did not need God's hand in his work, that he can manage by him self! It appeals to the worst in society and within the human nature. It
exhaults the criticizing spirit, accusors pointing the finger, envy - you want to bring
down the next guy because he is prospering and you are not. In short, it asks us to listen
to the lies of the originator of Marxism - satan himself. The proof of listening to satan
is in the pudding, destruction of the youth, then the country itself.
They certainly are not made up of humanitarians, and we do not see them out there helping
the sick and poor of the world except with the barrel of a gun.
As for Russia, the socialists are still there, waiting until capitalism has reestablished
the economy, ready to offer their misery to other unsuspecting people.
Did the United States escape the communist threat
to freedom? Not a chance. Communism does not present itself as such anymore, but many of
its ideas permeate the system.
Marxists told the masses that all their problems
came from their constant class struggle and they would be rich if only they were not
impeded by the bloodsucking Capitalists. The problem is, once begun murder tends to
continue and even escalate. So they arrested even those who helped with the revolution and
delighted in making them suffer the cruelest kinds of tortures you can imagine. This done
to 10-25% of the population, which made it a system straight from the pit of hell.
The Finnish Communist
party luckily just couldn't get it together at the right moment in history, because for
one thing, they were fighting amongst themselves. Finland missed out on going down the
path of Russia and Eastern Europe. This was the second and last time the Finnish
communists and their brothers, the Russian Bolsheviks, had a chance to overthrow the
democratically elected government, the first being
in 1918. General Mannerheim crushed this with some help from the Germans.
The elections of 1945 were especially important
and 74.9% of Finns voted, with 30 divisions of Russians waiting on the other side of the
border just to help the people make their decision. They did succeed in getting the
communist minister of the interior (Yrjö Leino) in power for 31/2 years, but a communist takeover was not in the cards. The Czechoslovakian road
would not be that of the Finns.
Those on the lists were disposed of in the
aforementioned countries - a horrible fate to survive the war and have that happen. And a
plot was also underway in Finland by Yrjö Leino, who was the chief of Valpo, Finland's
secret police agency. He was building an army of communist police to "fight post-war
crime," and preparing to seize power in Finland. However, the two main players, Yrjö
Leino and Aaltonen were feuding, and eventually the whole thing collapsed as Leino lapsed
into alcoholism and fell out of favor with Moscow. In 1948 the Finnish parliament got rid of
Leino for his anti Finnish activities. Simultaneously, the West's outcry against what was
going on in the Czech Republic caused the Russians to back off in Finland. It was a close
call for Finland.
The Allies, as a result of Stalin's insistence,
criminalized Finland's war with the Soviet Union, and demanded imprisonment for those
responsible. A retroactive law, against the Finnish Constitution, had to be passed to
proceed with the tribunal which was obliged to sentence President Ryti, wartime Prime
Ministers J.W. Rangell and Edwin Linkomies, Foreign Minister Henrik Ramsay, Ministers
Väinö Tanner, Antti Kukkonen and Tyko Reinikka, as well as Minister T.M. Kivimäki, the
wartime envoy to Berlin, to prison. Mannerheim, who had accepted the presidency, now
resigned in solidarity.
J.K. Paasikivi became the president in 1947 and
set a course of foreign policy, which included uncompromisingly clinging to independence
while at the same time keeping the Soviets happy. He even turned down Marshall aid from
the U.S. Where was the aid when Finland really needed it in 1944, when the Allies marched
the Karelians out and the Russians in? It wasn't just that Finland wanted to instill
confidence in the USSR, but the Finns are proud and independent. Accepting aid after what
the Allies did to the Finnish people would be out of character.
In 1948 Finland concluded a Treaty of
Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance with the USSR The clause calling for mutual
assistance takes effect if another state uses Finland to attack the USSR and such aid
would not be automatic, but only after negotiations. (good luck)
Patriotic National Alliance - The Finnish watchdog group demands the
return of properties taken by Russia, and protests a Finnish government denial of
territorial disputes - a prerequisite for EU membership granted Finland in 1995. They also
wish to raise awareness in the international community about the selling out of Finland's
territorial sovereignty in any secret agreements by others i.e. Finnish national interests
during bilateral talks. It may sound nationalistic and it is, but mostly in a good way. You can't lay down and let the Russians walk all over you. National interests of Finland must now be subordinated to the EU collective. Will it be only a matter of time that EU police begin to enforce free thought, as in the USSR? Free thought
was not supressed there either right away.
Whatever became of the beautiful sandy beaches of the Finnish Riviera? The Soviets
destroyed the beauty of Terijoki, and even trucked off much of the beautiful sand for
construction, leaving behind a rubble of rocks. What a bitter fate for such a beautiful
place enjoyed by free, happy people who became scattered all over the world.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Prints Soviet Disinformation
From the Russian point of view, Karelia,
Finland and the Baltics (and who knows what other areas) have always been Russian. They
claim Viipuri (Vyborg) has always been Russian, except it was in the "possession of
the Finns between 1920 - 39." Since Viipuri is the writer's parental hometown, he can
say without fear of contradiction, that this is an outright lie. In 1721 Russia managed to
occupy parts of Finland, including Viipuri for some time but the city was never considered
to be a Russian city, being populated mainly by Finnish speaking Karelians and Finns. Even
when Finland was a Grand Duchy of Russia, it was a special arrangement. Finland, and
Viipuri, did not "belong" to Russia. It was a special deal just between the Czar
and the Finnish people. To travel to Finland, a Russian still needed to obtain the
permission of Finland. Therefore, Viipuri could not under any stretch of the imagination
have been a Russian city although they managed to move the border to the west of the city
for some time. Unfortunately, the Encyclopaedia Britannica has taken the Russian view of
Finnish history - a great error and injustice to the Finnish people. The Finnish foreign
ministry, which states that this is a great shame to this "knowledge" base, is
correcting this situation. It is about time Britain and United States stood up for the
smaller European countries they released to the care of Stalin. By correcting Soviet
revisionism, they can make a start. Länsipuro, who is correcting the errors, says it
looks like it is straight from the Soviet "Bolshaja Sovjetskaja
Entsiklopediasta." The errors are also propagated on the Internet versions of the
encyclopedia. Also included in this is Soviet propaganda about the ceded territories!
Many Russians claim the entire North for
themselves on historical and racial grounds. Demin, a Russian writer, even declares that
the "Finnish epic Kalevala is "Russian" and Finns were
"indeed" a Slavic population. There were many such crazy fantasies of Russians,
like whole Kola and Maanselkä areas were inhabited by Russians and Finno-Ugrics were just
an ethnographic part of the Slavic nation. I suppose this book was created for such
Nazi-Russian organizations, like "Russian National Unity" or "Congress of
The foreign ministry of Finland has had to fix
many similar disinformations in European schoolbooks. And this work to correct Soviet
disinformation in all Western institutions continues by the foreign ministry.
Karl Marx in Hell
by Bob Wallace
Interviewer: It's nice of you to take time out from your busy
schedule for an interview.
Marx: Believe me, I can use the break.
Interviewer: Really? So tell me, what's Hell like? I don't see any demons, no flames, no
lakes of boiling lead, no being jabbed with tridents.
Marx: Naw, that's not how it is. What Hell is really about is seeing all your handiwork.
In my case, I had to sit here and watch the 20th century pass by. Do you know about 200
million people were murdered because of my ideas? I had to watch that. Now that's Hell.
Interviewer: You mean you've given up your beliefs?
Marx: Every one of them. Hey, I've had a lot of time to think.
Interviewer: Interesting. Could you give me some specifics as to why you're wrong?
Marx: Well, for only thing, I got human nature completely wrong. Completely backwards,
actually. I didn't realize that human nature has both good and bad in it. You can say,
roughly speaking, that a liberal is someone who thinks human nature is good and society,
bad. A conservative thinks the opposite; human nature is bad and society, good, because it
represses all the bad in human nature. A liberal usually thinks that if you get rid of
oppressive society, then all the natural, innate goodness of people will automatically
bloom. I thought if society was changed, along socialist lines, then the essential
"goodness" of human nature would automatically turn all of us into gods. The
exact opposite happened. Socialism appeals not to the best in human nature, but the worst:
greed, envy, hate, theft, murder. It appeals to the animal in us, the bad part.
Civilization, I realize now, is just a thin, fragile film on top of a lot of badness in
people. And civilization is easily destroyed. And socialism will always destroy it.
Socialism believes that State should control everything. But when the State controls
everything, the absolute worst the ambitious, power-mad and amoral rise to the top.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot....all of them socialists.
Interviewer: Socialism appeals to the worst in us? Could you expand on that?
Marx: Socialism is based on envy, which is without a doubt the most trouble-making feeling
in the world. Let's look at the story of The Garden of Eden. The serpent is actually a
symbol of envy, and he wants to bring Adam and Eve down because he envies the fact they
are favored by God. That's what envy always does, attempts to bring people down. So he
talks Eve into breaking the rules, and she talks Adam into it. When they're caught, Adam
blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. I think the story makes the most sense if you
consider them to be about five years old, neither taking responsibility for their actions
and instead blaming someone else. What this story shows is that envy is responsible for
people blaming others for their problems. It's scapegoating. "It's because of you
that I'm poor. Because you're rich, I live in poverty." Envy leads to murder, theft,
greed...all kinds of horrible things. It's always about trying to level everyone and make
everyone the same, so no one will be better than anyone else. This, of course, is
impossible. The only way people can be the same is if they're identical, like two pennies.
Only if you're completely identical can everyone be the same. In the Garden, envy is
ultimately what brings evil into the world. One of the Ten Commandments prohibits envy,
and the first murder Cain and Abel was because of envy. So socialism, since it is based on
envy, will always lead to terrible tragedies.
Interviewer: Then there's no hope for socialism?
Marx: None whatsoever. It's evil to the core. Socialists should stop trying to change
society and change themselves. That's the problem, really. They're flawed as we all are
but they blame their problems on society. That's human nature, to blame your problems on
someone else. No society is perfect, but a socialist society is the least perfect of all
of them. I now realize socialism is a truly childish system, one that creates children
instead of adults. Do you know what Thomas Hobbes said? "The evil man is the child
grown strong." People like Hitler and Stalin weren't adults. They were children. For
that matter, I never grew up, either. I was a child all my life, blaming my problems and
the world's on "capitalism." If I had been born rich there never would have been
a Marxism. I admired only aristocrats, anyway. I used to wear a monocle and go on
fox-hunts. All socialists, deep down inside, know they're wrong. They can't admit it
because of self-deception. That's why they keep trying socialism over and over, even
though it never works. "Just one more time, then we'll make it work." One of the
saddest but most true definitions of insanity I've ever heard is "to try the same
thing over and over and expect a different result."
Interviewer: So it's a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?
Marx; Yes, that's true. Do you know I've actually seen The Who a couple of times from down
here? I'm so far away I've never gotten a good view of them, though.
Interviewer: Let's discuss your ten-point system for changing society. Could you go
through them and explain why they're wrong?
Marx: Sure. Let's take the first one, "Abolition of property in land and application
of all rents of land to public purposes." If no one owns the land, then everyone will
exploit it, because they think if they don't someone else will. It's called "the
tragedy of the commons." And that's exactly what happens. People really only take
care of things when they own them. I realize now that private property is the most
important basis for civilization. Then there's the second, "A heavy progressive or
graduated income tax." One of the problems with this is that when you tax people's
money away, they'll cease to work, save and invest. This is why when taxes are cut, the
economy always gets better, and when taxes are raised, it always gets worse.
Interviewer: What about the third, "Abolition of all rights of inheritance"?
Marx: Why should people build up a business if they can't give it to their children? And
as for the fourth, "confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels," a
rebel is only defined as what the State doesn't like. As for emigrants, the only time
there is mass emigration is when the country absolutely stinks as a place to live. How
many people are trying to get into America as compared to those trying to get out? And
they sure aren't going to be productive immigrants, not if they believe all they own will
be stolen if they ever leave, or even if they stay.
Interviewer: And the fifth?
Marx: "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national
bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." When this happens the central
bank what you call the Federal Reserve always inflates the money supply. This causes a
fake economic boom. When it's over, you get recession and unemployment. What's little
known is that the first people to get the inflated money, they prosper and buy everything
up. The last people to get the money get devalued money and can't buy much. Your dollar
has lost about 99% of its purchasing power in the last 100 years, because of inflation.
You have a small amount of enormously wealthy people. You know one of the reasons why?
It's because they were the first to get their hands on the inflated money. Without
inflation, there are far fewer very rich, and far fewer very poor.
Interviewer: And the sixth, "Centralization of the means of communication and
transport in the hands of the state"?
Marx: Ah, yes. People only get to hear or read or watch what the State allows. That's an
attempt to brainwash people, to turn them into little robots who don't understand their
country and the State are two totally different things. They think "patriotism"
means defending the State. It means defending your country. (emphasis added) Of all
the wars you've been in, how many were to defend an attack on your country, and how many
were to defend the State's interests? As for the "transport" part, that
ultimately means you can only live where the State wants you to.
Interviewer: The seventh?
Marx: "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the
bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in
accordance with a common plan." All of them have the same fatal flaw: you're supposed
to work and give everything to someone else. No one's going to do that. Everyone ends up
thinking, "Why should I work if no one else is?" So everyone is poor. One of the
best definitions of capitalism and socialism I've heard is, "capitalism is the
unequal distribution of wealth and socialism the the equal distribution of poverty."
The eighth? "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies,
especially to agriculture." Under the free market, if you don't work, you don't eat.
Under socialism, if you work, you still don't eat. I guess there's some humor there, if
you look hard enough. "Industrial armies." Armies are for war, not peace.
Interviewer: What about the ninth, "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing
industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more
equable distribution of the population over the country"?
Marx: Only the free market can decide what business should be combined. Combining
agriculture with manufacturing? Exactly how? I didn't think that one out too well, did I?
As for abolishing the distinction between town and country, this can only be done if you
shuffle people around at the point of a gun. Under this, people have to live where the
State wants them to live.
Interviewer: What about the tenth?
Marx: "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's
factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,
etc." There's no such thing as free education. People always pay for it out of their
taxes. That's a curious trait of humanity. They think if it's from the government, it's
free. They often don't realize the money can only be taken from someone else and given to
them. It's theft, really. Public schools? They mean bureaucracies, with the resulting
destruction of creativity, imagination and learning. Bureaucracies are a terrible thing,
only most people don't know it. One of the reasons Alexander the Great was so successful
is that when he conquered a place he left the bureaucracies in place. Bureaucracies can
bring civilizations down. What do you think they'll do to public schools, given enough
time? When children's factory labor was abolished, those children no longer had a way to
make a living. Which is worse, a crummy job, or starving and homeless? The one about
education and industrial production wasn't too bad, as long as the free market does it,
and voluntarily. When the State does it, either you do what the State says, or else.
Interviewer: One last question. Is Hell eternal?
Marx: No, it's not. You just have to wait until all the bad things you've done have
disappeared. When the day comes when not one person is the world believes in what I wrote,
then I can leave.
Interviewer: Any idea when that day might come?
Marx: Your guess is as good as mine. But I do think it's going to be a long, long time.
Interviewer: Thank you, Karl Marx.
Marx: You're welcome.
December 18, 2001
Bob Wallace, a former newspaper reporter and editor,
and an incurable lover of puns, lives in St. Louis.
The purpose of this information is to disclose
to the world what really happened during Stalin's reign of terror in the North, of which
Finland became a victim, along with half of Europe. If we can understand why things went
the way they did, perhaps something like that will never happen again, and God willing,
some results can be corrected.
But with what some call a " James Bond Villain " like Vladimir Putin, we may have to wait. Now
the United States is Russia's pal again. But time will tell how much
"friendship" there really is. Is Russia now suddenly reformed after 1000 years
in the long term and 70+ years recently? Does history repeat itself, or are there really
new paradigms in store for Russia? What a novel idea: Russia becomes civilized. The
dishonest image that the Finns have had of Russians through history was reinforced in 1939
when Russia tried to steal Finland, though it managed to only steal a part. The only way
this can ever be changed is if Russia gives back what it stole, Finnish Karelia. Since
this probably won't happen in our lifetime, I can see that mistrust of Russia will
continue. Mistrust is what saved Finland many times, and it will do so again. This is
unfortunate, since doing business with a neighbor is based on trust. This is why Russia
will have trouble pulling itself out of financial woes - it simply cannot understand fair
play - meaning that they always have to gain an advantage even if it is by trickery. This
tradition must change for Russia to play with other civilized members of our shrinking world.
Putin tightens Journalist travel VISA approvals
citing lack of respect
I hate it when someone demands respect. I get
it at my work from inept people who have risen for political reasons, but don't have a
clue how to deal with people. Early in 2005 Putin told the world that he wanted people to
respect Russia. They can get a VISA to do journalism there ONLY if they write good
things. Your freedom to report is a priviledge earned by saying the right things, just
like in the former USSR. Putin does not understand the principles of democracy - he still thinks along the old Soviet lines about most things. I can
imagine what the Russian newspapers are saying about him, all good things of course. Now wonder he got in a second
time. There are a lot of reports about what happens to any news agency that opposes him. His cronies are installed in all the minority Republics, and anyone who dares to vote against a Moscow man, will be see harsh recriminations. Ethnic teachers are fired, and replaced with Russian teachers. It reminds me of the United States, at least the part about how powerful news cartels can
get their man in. Except we now know after the Orange Revolution, that more than media is being used to get Moscow cronies in power.
country or person who wants respect must earn it. Until then Mr. Putin, you will be treated with kid
gloves, and everyone voting for the opposition will watch their backs.
One of the major problems in the past was Russia's constant interference in the Baltic
countries. This apparently is still causing problems, and Putin is the fellow doing it
with veiled threats and comments. EU is also looking into Putin's treatment of Finno-Ugric people, especially in Mari El Republic, where a Moscow man has been installed for the second time and the ethnic opposition beaten up.Putin
the Terrible.EU condemns Communism.Diary of a 1931 journey into Soviet Russia.
CRIME RATES JUMP 100% AMONGST IMMIGRANTS TO FINLAND: Reaping the rewards of Multiculturism experiments.
Some highlights out of the survey of Ministry of Interior concerning crimes
committed by foreigners/immigrants in Finland. This does not reflect on the citizens of
these countries because obviously Finland is letting in criminals. The following
statistics are the last such statistics Finland will release.
The amount of robberies increased from the year 1999 to 2000 by 14 percent, but robberies
done by foreigners/immigrants increased by 100 percent. Sexual crime figures show that
about 8 percent of sexual crimes were committed by foreigners/immigrants, whose percentage
of the population is 2 percent.
The Ministry of Interior has decided not to make these kinds of special surveys on crimes
committed by foreigners/immigrants in the future. Why? Because it might make the Finns
angry and protests against immigration might increase. From the figures it can be shown
that the entire Finnish population accounts for only 22.7 % of all violent crimes in
Finland, the rest are committed by immigrants led by Somalis who committed 17%. Since Somalia is Muslim and Finland wants these people in the country, perhaps it would be best to examine exactly what are Muslims and are they ideal people for Finland.
Ten most suspected ethnic groups in violent crimes in the year 2000:
Nationality / Amount of crimes