UFHP1.gif (2458 bytes)

Menu



















Copyright Osmo Joronen 2006

All Rights reserved

UFHP2.gif (8876 bytes)GRNCORNR.gif (952 bytes)

Europe is Free!
The Shape of Freedom

Updated March 1, 2013

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.

Contents:

Yalta Conference
Churchill's shame and fears
Stalin Redraws World's Borders
Fate of Eastern Europe
Soviet disinformation
Karl Marx in Hell
Immigration and Crime Rates

Post War Eastern Europe and Finland


Plaschke, Chicago Tribune American, 1945


Yalta Conference

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

Were the Soviet-Finnish treaties legal?

Churchill's Shame and Fears for the Future

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."

Neither 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)
From Finland:
(16,173 sq. mi = 41,887.88 sq. km, population c. 500,000 - including the writer's parent's property)
From Poland:
(77,703 sq. mi = 201,249.8 sq. km, population c. 12,775,000)
From Romania:
(19,300 sq. mi = 49,986.77 sq. km, population 3,500,000)
From Czechoslovakia:
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 their heads.

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
etc.

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 time now.

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 Russian Communities".

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.

Any 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.

The Russian people approve of Putin, a nostalgic former communist KGB thug.

FINLAND IN THE NEWS

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

Finnish....................... Somalian...................... Russian....................... Unknown....................... Iraqi......................... Estonian...................... Jugoslavian................... Vietnamese.................... Turkish....................... Swedish.......................
408
308
181
165
148
134
119
119
111
103

From these absolute figures one can calculate percentages, given the total population of Finland (5.2 million), amount of Somalian citizens (4190), and so on.

Sources:
http://www.intermin.fi/


Links

Books on this topic
Stalin's Death Camps
Forced Repatriation by British and Americans of Freedom seeking people, back to Stalin.
Collapse of Soviet Union Why the Soviet Union Collapsed.
Stalin's White Sea Death Camps Solovetskii Death Camps inspired Hitler.
Forced Repatriation How the British and Americans participated in the great evil of Stalinism.
Museum of Communism
St. Petersburg Chronicle of 1998
Good bye Karelia - Antti's story
Is Finland Worth Saving? 1944 Article
Ladoga 1941- Antti Joronen's Exclusive Photo Gallery

The Baltics
Baltic Security Conference
soc.culture.baltics

Search:
Keywords:

Kalevala Books | Finnish/Music and CDs | Books and Videos | Finnish Products
Cars, featuring Mika H�kkinen | Finnish and Karelian music samples | Books, Videos and Electronics



BACK2_118x42.gif (11067 bytes)