Two Truths

“Everything faded into mist.  The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.

               -George Orwell, 1984

I look about me and think to myself that maybe, in today’s world, there is not one, but two truths that are trying to but cannot coexist.  At least, while likely not true for universal truths, it seems that people are willing to adjust their definition of daily truths to one that coincides with their wishes and desires.

We often like to say: look at the facts, the evidence, because it cannot lie.  And while that is true, it may not necessarily be the truth of our daily life.  For some, truth is absolute realism.  Picture a painting of a table on which stands a wilted bouquet of flowers.  That may be what indeed a photograph would capture at that moment. 

Now picture the same painting but with a glorious and bountiful bouquet of freshly blooming flowers.  The painter may be thinking that if he tends to his garden, that will be the bouquet that he can paint next week.  It does not exist today, but for him it absolutely exists in the future and hence is part of his truth today.

Early in the Soviet era writer Maxim Gorky counseled a young writer that it is not enough to say “I wrote the truth.”  Rather, the author must ask himself two questions:  Which truth? and Why?  At that time Gorky was referring to the truth of pre-revolutionary Russia versus the truth of what Russia was becoming.

Much the same may be going on in today’s America.  Those who would have America remain true to her core values and the Constitution see truth as the descriptions, facts, and evidence that are true to that America and the traditional beliefs/values of its population.  Those who are looking for great social change see truth in the picture they paint of what we can be and are becoming.  To them it is true that a person can choose their gender or shift it as they please, resulting in statements such as “men can become pregnant”, a statement which is factually and scientifically inaccurate and thus not a truth to the realists, but something which those trying to recreate a future see as a realistic future truth and hence a truth to them today.

Obviously, these opposing truths and many others cannot coexist.  Laws are affixed to one reality.  Opposing truths result in opposing laws or just anarchy.  Education – its needs, goals, and how to achieve them – is similarly at odds.  How one manages everything, from the food one puts on one’s plate to international relations, suffers.  The concept of opposing truths is currently on full display in the reactions to the terrorist attacks on Israel:  those whose truth is the factual history of the region are in opposition to those whose truth is the factually inaccurate but desired narrative that Israel is a guilty oppressor.

If the revolutionaries (and that is perhaps a good term for the progressive Left and its truth) prevail, then their narrative which is their truth, while not the reality of today, will become the reality of tomorrow.

That might not be so if we retain a pathway to current and past truths of this country and its values, accomplishments, and failures.  But if they are not retained, even if only as part of history, then they will be lost, and the revolutionary truths will be the only truths.

Interestingly, some would argue that part of the reason for the fall of Soviet Russia is that it retained and revered its prerevolutionary classics.   The works of the great Russian authors – Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Chekhov, etc. – retained a picture of the prerevolutionary reality and the values it conveyed, values that were in direct opposition to Communism.  At least some have traced the intellectual force behind Gorbachev’s glasnost to be the youthful reading of Russia’s great literature.  “The Bolsheviks did not realize that by having their children read Tolstoy…they were digging the grave of their revolution.” (Slezkine, The House of Government, quoted in Morson, Wonder Confronts Certainty).

Perhaps today’s Progressive Left learned from that Bolshevik mistake.  Perhaps it is for that reason that they feel the need to cancel and destroy anything that represents the past and current truth of America and how they justify their openly asserted belief that free speech must be canceled.  If there is no other truth, then their revolutionary truth that is yet to be can become the only truth. 

The analogy is not completely misplaced because for the Progressive Left, the destruction and reimagining of America is as obsessive a cause as was the Russian revolution to the Bolsheviks.  As the Russian people discovered, when the revolutionary lie becomes the truth then the reality is not that of the glorious utopian vision, but a very ugly existence. 

But the Russian people had access to their past truth, a truth that was actually more real than that within which they lived.  If today’s Progressive Left Cancel Culture has its way, we and future generations will not have that access.  We will not know what else was and could have been, and our truth will be as hollow as the unachievable dream narratives of the Progressives.

Like Gorky we must ask: Which truth and Why?  The truth that has been America for 247 years, or the truth that the Progressive Left believes will become the new truth.  A vision is not a truth but a narrative dream.  America’s truth is fading into the mist.  We must not allow America’s truth to be erased and the Left’s revolutionary dream to become a nightmare of false truth.

(Image AI Generated in response to prompt “Two Truths in Opposition")

TWO STORIES

 I was probably around 11 years old the first time I went to a birthday party where I received a prize without winning any of the games.  This was a new experience for someone in the late 1950s/early 1960s.  It was the first time everyone got a prize whether they did anything or not.  On the way home with my mother I tried to explain that the prize I had received was not because I had won, but just something for taking part in the game.  She didn’t understand. I remember my overwhelming emotion was one of shame for getting something for nothing.

Recently I heard a successful minority artist being interviewed on the radio.  The interviewer kept stressing the fact that he had worked several jobs during his time at college in order to pay his tuition.  My thinking was “so what – a lot of people I know as well as my own self did the same, some were minorities, some were not.  All were both thankful for and proud of their work and what it had allowed them to accomplish.”   But the interviewer, and to some extent the artist himself, seemed to stress the victim factor of having to work to attend college.  This was such a contrast to the view that such work to improve oneself and/or achieve a goal is something to be proud of.  It does not make someone a victim, but rather a success.

What do these two stories have in common and what do they tell us about society both in years past and today?

To what is one entitled?

Both stories consider a relationship between some personal effort and a reward.  The first story reflects a principle that one does not get something for nothing – one must “win” it by their own hard work.

The second story reflects the idea that if you have to work for something then you are experiencing some sort of victimhood/disentitlement and that the focus of your eventual success should be on the victim experience rather than the personal initiative that led to your success or even the ultimate success itself.

If we consider that these two core principles reflect a more general societal view far beyond the specifics of each story, then one has to wonder: 1) how has such a core value changed so greatly in little over 50 years; and (2) is the change a good one?

A change in message

It was in the 1960s that our society began to seriously question competition, especially for children.  We began to be concerned that hurt feelings of losing were unhealthy and must be eliminated.  Hence the emergence of the “participation trophy” for everyone.

The hidden message of such “trophies” is that really all one has to do is show up.  No effort required beyond mere presence.  A second message is that one has a right to always feel good – no hurt feelings due to losing a competition or otherwise.

The “entitlement” to always feeling good broadened beyond childhood games.  Parents hesitated to say “no” to children for fear of hurt feelings.  Grade inflation was in part motivated by a similar goal.  “Safe spaces” began to appear on college campuses and in the workplace as the children who learned that they had a right to demand happiness grew up and became adults.

This change in attitude continued to explode.  Not only were you entitled to never have a hurt feeling – everyone was entitled to have it all.  Personal choices that may have led to a negative personal consequence became no longer relevant as well as personal characteristics and talents that make each of us the individual we are.  Scientific advances helped in this regard, doing such things as outfitting physically limited bodies with artificial replacements.  Yes, people began to believe that they can and that they are entitled to any and everything they want, including the current idea that they can change their sex at will and that men can be pregnant and give birth to a child.  Questioning any personal desire or gratification is met with an accusation of insensitivity if not bigotry.

Is the new message a good one?

A message of entitlement growing out of a desire to protect from pain at first may sound harmless or perhaps even laudable, but once one reflects on it one can see the broad and changeful effect that it can have. 

It creates a major change in societal values.  Where personal responsibility and pride in one’s work were once lauded, now the responsibility falls upon society as a whole to create a happy environment for all.  (We will save for another time how and who defines “happiness” for all the people.)  A recent television ad advertising a free housing program announced that people should have time to play and do what they want rather than have to work hard to pay for housing; the visuals showed happy individuals riding bikes, playing in parks, etc.

For many today, the concept of “equity” for all as opposed to “equality of opportunity” has become paramount.  If one will have the same result regardless of how much or little effort one puts in, the work ethic becomes meaningless and with it pride in one’s work becomes an archaic concept.

A path to Socialism

With the loss of those concepts a path is cleared toward socialism.  This country has been testing that path for some time, and now it seems that a good half of the country would choose Socialism over Capitalism.

Both systems can be enticing, and neither is perfect.  I will be the first to admit that in America today it is much harder to achieve one’s dreams simply through one’s own hard work and that the promise of utopia that Socialism presents (though ultimately never delivers) sounds lovely.  But at the same time I believe that to give up that individual fulfillment that comes from the sometimes difficult burdens of personal responsibility and hard work would be a hugely wrong step for our society. 

If you only had fun, do you really win?

It is only through the struggles that one faces when allowed to experience hardships and sadness that one can feel the true joys of success.  And it is often those hard times that provide one with the motivation to strive to become truly the best they can be and not just one of the many swimming in the mediocre sea of equity. 

Nowadays of course, everyone expects to get the prize/trophy/reward whether they worked for it or not.  If not provided, they become victims with a claim for an even bigger and better prize.  I think our society was in a better place in the first story - when one felt a bit ashamed of getting something for nothing.

 

Ostrich or Bolshevik?

I find it difficult to understand how many Americans still support President Biden and his Leftist agenda.  I guess they must be either ostriches or Bolsheviks.

Ostriches, with their heads in the sand, are unaware of the obvious going on around them which include, but are certainly not limited to, the following examples: 

• Suppression of free speech –  Testifying at a House hearing yesterday our Attorney General acknowledged during questioning that he, the DOJ, and the President consulted only with the teacher’s union and then put forth the memo requested by the union that essentially condemns parents who speak up at a school board meeting in opposition to the union policies and especially to the teaching of the racist CRT. The idea that such concerned parents might be called domestic terrorists certainly has a chilling effect on their ability to speak out no matter how much the AG tries to talk his way around it.
• Intimidation and cancelling of ideas not aligned with the Left – Includes inconsistent application of laws, demands that people embrace – not just tolerate - ideas (including such things as gender fluidity or necessity of 2-year-olds wearing masks) that are not supported by science or other civil necessity.
• Loss of privacy – the White House, allegedly to prevent IRS fraud by the rich, wants to have access to bank accounts with any transaction of over $600. Most people who work and have paychecks deposited, or who pay a mortgage will have transactions of that amount on a monthly basis and hence have their personal financial transactions open for government inspection.
• Economic disasters – Job reports falling well below expectations, gas prices at a seven-year high, inflation at a 30-year high and continuing to rise, food prices up along with costs of housing, energy, and other essentials, interest rates likely to increase. The economy is failing, and the middle class are the ones who will suffer most from its failure.
• Supply chain problems – meanwhile the Secretary of Transportation is on leave since August and has not left a specified point person in charge.
• International standing – plummeting. The Afghanistan pullout was a complete embarrassment and a huge hit to America’s reputation. China outpacing us with development and successful test of a hypersonic missile (made in part using US technology).
• Military and law enforcement – Afghanistan. Disrespect for military and police; focus on inclusion and equity rather than readiness
• Coronavirus – Cases continue to rise. Mandates eviscerate the idea of personal choice when the science behind vaccine and covid is still being discovered. Meanwhile Biden policies and mandates result in firing of essential workers, leaving them without jobs, pensions, etc, and the people whom they serve without service.
• The border – Migrant encounters at the border are at a 21 year high. The Biden administration has effectively created open borders. Children are living in overcrowded cages and are flown around the country in the middle of the night. Drug and child trafficking are up. Single adult males account for about 2/3 of the crossings. Migrants are released into the interior with only a request that they return for a hearing. The President says he has been too busy to visit the border, yet he has taken any number of vacations.
• Corruption and lack of transparency – run rampant in this White House. Questions are not answered or are answered with falsehoods. Investigations of possible corruption or unethical behavior are suppressed. Even the Attorney General himself refused to have evaluated the ethics of his involvement in the threat to parents about opposing CRT at school boards despite his association via son-in-law with a firm that benefits significantly from schools using CRT.
• Biden and his administration – blame everyone else for the problems, refusing to take responsibility for anything. Biden ignores the idea of rule of law when he does such things as judge border agents guilty when accused of whipping illegal border crossers, even when the evidence shows it didn’t happen. The Administration becomes more and more authoritarian every day. And, like other authoritarian governments, while they make many rules to govern every aspect of citizen’s lives, those rules are not applied to themselves. Also, like most authoritarian governments, they are intent upon silencing any opposition to their policies and their power.

Or Bolshevik?  If you are aware of the above and the many other problematic and authoritarian activities of this administration, but continue to support Biden’s policies, then perhaps you are a Bolshevik. 

Bolshevism (from Bolshevik) is a revolutionary Marxist current of political thought and political regime associated with the formation of a rigidly centralized, cohesive and disciplined party of social revolution, focused on overthrowing the existing capitalist state system, seizing power and establishing the "dictatorship of the proletariat".  It originally referred to Russian communists, but now the term is used more generally for those who support such views and policies.

I find it hard not to characterize most of the activity of Biden and the Left as intent upon overthrowing and totally changing what we call America.  Thus, those who support such activity can easily be termed Bolsheviks.

Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin put it well earlier this week in a speech to the International Valdai Discussion Group in Sochi.  Whatever else you may think of Putin, as former KGB he understands revolution, communism, and communist suppression.  Here are some of the more relevant parts of his speech:

The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.

 

This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

 

Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. . . .

 

In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.

 

Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “'birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.

. . . .

Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history. The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.

I do encourage you to read the entire speech which can be found here:  LINK  

I wonder if in 1917 the Russian ostriches and Bolsheviks knew what they were in for in the “brave new world” they either were creating or allowing to happen via their indifference.  The Bolshevik dream gave them Stalin’s reign of terror and decades of living with hunger, hardship, and fear in the fully government-controlled society.  They lived without freedom until, even when communism fell, they found they had forgotten how to be free.

Our Bolsheviks actively work towards a complete reconfiguration of America.  But their touted new world is not a new idea and it is more frightening than enlightened.  Nonetheless, their actions and support for Leftist policy tells us this is what they indeed seek to create.

But our ostriches, with heads lost in the sand, are supporting this revolution as well.  If the ostriches would raise their heads and look around, they might see what is really happening and hopefully speak out against it.  Indifference is a vote and a win for the Left and ultimately for the tragedies and horrors that come with their new world order.

The Warning is Still Relevant and Even More Urgent if Anyone Will Listen

 

Is it possible or impossible to transmit the experience of those who have suffered to those who have yet to suffer?  Can one part of humanity learn from the bitter experience of another or can it not?  Is it possible or impossible to warn someone of danger?

               -Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the West

 The above words express much of the frustration Solzhenitsyn must have felt when he came to America after his expulsion from the Soviet Union in 1974.  The above quote is from a speech given to leaders of the AFL-CIO in New York on July 9, 1975, during which he tried to warn this group of American workers and leaders of the dangers inherent in Communism and Socialism.

The sad thing, the similarly frustrating thing, is that most of Solzhenitsyn’s words and warnings ring true as even more relevant today.  The frightening thing is that once again no one is really hearing the words, perhaps because without having experienced what is being warned of one cannot hear the warning.

And yet, there are those perhaps fools who will keep shouting the warning to anyone who will listen, hoping perhaps beyond hope that someone will hear at least a small whisper, that someone will awake and they will awake others and perhaps the impending danger can be avoided.  We will see.

In the meantime, I would like to go through some of the key statements from this particular Solzhenitsyn speech with notes on how they reflect very clearly what is happening in America today.  It is not possible to read them without recognizing things we see all around us.

[Notes.  The full text of this speech can be found, collected with other of his speeches in the book Warning to the West by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 1976.  It can also be found in the July-August 1975 edition of the AFL-CIO Free Trade Union News beginning at page 17, and available at this LINK.  The page numbers to which I refer below are pages of the speech in the book Warning to the West.  While I generally use the term “Communism” as did Solzhenitsyn in his speech, one should understand that the basic concepts warned of are also aspects of Socialism and Democratic Socialism.]

“The whole world can read, everyone is literate, yet somehow no one wants to understand.  Humanity acts as if it does not understand what Communism is, as if it does not want to understand, is not capable of understanding.” (p. 54)

I don’t know about you, but that to me sounds like most of the people around me in this country.  We have around 1/3 of our young people thinking Socialism/Communism is a great system.  We have leaders and politicians pushing a big government Socialist agenda and no one even seems to bat an eye.  Perhaps no one wants to know because it is too disconcerting; it is easier just to go about enjoying one’s daily life without paying attention to what is going on around one.  Or, perhaps as Solzhenitsyn suggests, “the essence of Communism is quite beyond the limits of human understanding.”

What is the “essence” of Communism?  Solzhenitsyn reminds us that it never changes. (p. 55) Sure, while during the Soviet era it was the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie and today those labels have been replaced with the appropriate identity group labels of the day, the basic rhetoric has not changed.  Communism as well as socialism assert that once the evil group has been overthrown, “the most happy and radiant society will then arise.”  But no Communist leaders ever describe concretely what that new society will be like.  

If today’s Left successfully put into place their many social justice and new world order programs, do you have any idea what the new society that they wish to create will look like?  Will the promises of a rosy new world of peace, joy, and happiness be sustainable, or will it look more like the many other failed Communist and Socialist regimes with negligible resources, corrupt and selfish leaders, starving and unhappy populace?  Perhaps it will look a bit like the Cuba of today that the people who have actually suffered and are suffering this brave new world are risking their very lives to protest against.

“Marxism has always opposed freedom.” (p. 57) “Communism is anti-humanity.” (p. 59)

According to Solzhenitsyn Communism reduces all the complexities of human nature to “crude economic processes.”  Man is “reduced to matter.”   Solzhenitsyn lays out one way in which this is successfully accomplished:  the destruction of traditional concepts of morality, good, and evil.  These concepts were once seen as absolutes, but Communism considers morality to be relative and a class matter. 

“Depending upon circumstances and the political situation, any act, including murder, even the killing of hundreds of thousands, could be good or could be bad.  It all depends upon class ideology.  (p. 58)

Communism has been highly successful in spreading the concept of situation ethics and the relativity of good and evil.  Indeed, people who profess absolutist concepts of good and evil are often seen as some character from the dark ages; the concepts are seen as old-fashioned and laughable. 

Why is it OK for BLM to conduct violent protests but largely peaceful protests from the political right are condemned?  Why do some large cities excuse shop-lifting if done by certain identity groups or excuse theft and violence if it was because the individual “needed” what was stolen?  Why are acts by the “victim” identity groups against the “victimizer” identity groups excused?  Why do the laws apply to some and not others?  These are questions asked in this country every day, and yet the real answers, the underlying source of the destruction of moral standards, are often ignored.

“And who defines this ideology?” Who determines when something is wrong or right when there is no clear or absolute standard?  In America today it seems to be a combination of Leftist political leaders, big corporations, and media.  It is not the people.

As Solzhenitsyn notes, the problem is that if we are deprived of the basic concepts of good and evil, deprived of standards of conduct that apply to all, nothing but the manipulation of one another is left.  And that is just fine with the Communists because they will take the power and do that manipulation while the rest of us “will sink to the status of animals.” (p. 58)  We seem to have a good cadre of Leftist leaders who are more than willing, indeed eager, to take all power and become our manipulators.  

“But what is amazing is that apart from all its writings, Communism has offered a multitude of examples for modern man to see.” (p. 59)

Solzhenitsyn gives numerous examples of the horrors of Communism taken from the time of his speech.  We can find equally timely ones today.  In China there are the Uyghur internment and forced labor camps that also likely include torture and death.  Actually, had anyone noticed, China was already becoming an example in 1975: “China is characterized by all the same [Communist] traits: massive compulsory labor which is not paid in accordance with its value; work on holidays; forced living in communes; and the incessant dinning of slogans and dogmas that abolish the human essence and deny all individuality to man.” (p. 64)

But we also have others.  Venezuela comes to mind:  the socialist/communist country that promised a great society to its people but that has collapsed to the detriment of its populace.  North Korea is another whose horrors are only partially known.  We have other socialist/communist authoritarian regimes that have all begun with a promise of some wonderful new world and which are in some form just the opposite for their people.  And we have Cuba whose people are right now trying to rise up against the horrors of Communism but who might just as likely be destroyed like any other group in Communism’s history who dared to speak out against its social order. 

Yet we have people that ignore these examples.  The Administration downplays the Cuban revolt, ignoring the fact that the essence of the people’s complaint is Communism.  We do not stand up to the treatment of the Uyghurs in China.  We turn a blind eye to the many Socialist and Communist atrocities around the world.  Yes, it is amazing that the examples are there, but too many choose not to see.

“All the apparent differences among the Communist Parties of the world are imaginary.  All are united on one point:  your social order must be destroyed.” 

(pp. 64-5)

And isn’t that just what our progressive Left, our Democratic Socialists, our Communists in this country are attempting to do with their many social justice and other policies and initiatives, their CRT, their destruction and erasure of history, their cancelling of unwelcome voices? Isn’t the essence of their many policies an attempt to destroy our social order?  And yet no one seems to notice.  Solzhenitsyn does not find it surprising that the world does not understand this.  “Even the socialists, who are the closest to Communists, do not understand it.”  Humanity cannot grasp the evil until they have experienced it themselves and by that time it is too late because they are dead.

“All of the Communist Parties, upon attaining power, have become completely merciless.  But at the stage before they achieve power, it is necessary to use disguises.” (p. 66)

We are bombarded with social justice.  Equity.  The ideal classless society.  The Left and their policies will fix everything for us.  The current Administration is well on its way.  The word “Communism” is not used.  Sometimes we hear “democratic Socialism” with the emphasis on the word “democratic.”  These are disguises that do not cover the truth of what we are facing.  But what are all these fine sounding things but the disguises of Communism.  The classless society is one in which every voice is suppressed by those in power. (p. 69)  

Suppression of speech is becoming pretty well installed in this country as the Administration, the Left, MSM, and Big Tech/Social Media all join hands to suppress voices that they do not like.  People accept it in the name of some sort of civility.   But it is nothing more than the Communist (and socialist) bait and switch.  The goal, the ideology of Communism remains the same: “to destroy your system, to destroy the way of life known in the West.” (p. 70) And to suppress any and all voices that do not speak the party line.

So many Americans buy into the beauteous sounding establishment of a new world order of peace and prosperity for all.  When we live in a country that, while imperfect, is indeed free and aspires to the highest goals of humanity, a country that is prosperous and generous, it is hard to imagine that everyone would not be behind a brave new world that looked like a perfected America.  Yet in reality, that brave new world requires totalitarianism and totalitarianism is the antithesis of America; it is the sort of world to which the disguises of Communism will lead us.

“We are approaching a major turning point in world history, in the history of civilization. . . . It is a juncture at which settled concepts suddenly become hazy, lose their precise contours, at which our familiar and commonly used words lose their meaning. . . . [T]he hierarchy of values which we have venerated, and which we use to determine what is important to us and what causes our hearts to beat is starting to rock and may collapse.” (p. 79)

Solzhenitsyn saw it coming in the 1970s.  It is here now. 

Solzhenitsyn saw two crises occurring simultaneously:  one political, one spiritual.  He noted that the entire world would have to face these crises but that it was America that would have to bear the burden of fighting against them. 

“Your [America’s] leaders will need profound intuition, spiritual foresight, high qualities of mind and soul.” (p. 80) Oh, if only that were true, if only that were the description of our leaders today.  We do not have such leaders.  They either do not see the problem, or ignore it, or are part of it.  The current Administration, essentially governed by the Left, has already seemingly signed onto the Communist agenda, whether they understand what they are doing or not.

Our political leaders, our media, our entertainment, our denial of what is going on around us, our willingness to accept without thought what we are told and do without thought what the Left desires, perhaps because we cannot see the dangers or perhaps because we do not want to, all of these things are leading us to disaster. And yet, “a concentration of world evil is taking place, full of hatred for humanity.  It is fully determined to destroy your society.” (p. 82)

Solzhenitsyn notes that those born in Communist countries are born slaves.  Some are currently striving for freedom.  But we, born in the USA, are born free.  So why, in the words of Solzhenitsyn, would we let ourselves become slaves?  Why do we help those who would become our slaveowners? (p. 84)

The why is stated at the start of this essay.  It seems that for those who live in a country where one can live a free and independent life, the dangers seem imaginary.  It is impossible to warn someone of the danger.  It is hard to ask someone to be vigilant when the danger to them seems unreal.  Solzhenitsyn has given us a heads up of what is to come – advice from one who knows and has experienced evil given to us who have not.  Yet, if the free and independent people of this country do not wake up, do not man the watchtowers, it will be too late for vigilance, too late for warnings from those who know what the Left, the Socialists, the Communists are truly seeking and what havoc they will wrest upon us and our world. It is time that we listen and see what is really going on.

Of Communists, Artisans, Conformity, and Freedom

 A few years ago when I was taking a Russian class we were studying vocabulary associated with apartments and their furnishings.  My teacher, who had grown up in Soviet Russia, was able to draw on the board a perfect diagram of a Soviet apartment in which most Russians lived.  Unofficially called Khrushchyovka, they were all alike:  same entry, same location of kitchen and main room, same hall to bedroom, same basic furnishings, even the same location of the mat on which to put your snow boots.  The only difference was whether or not a particular apartment had more than one bedroom (something that the State decided for the individual residents).

This of course was part of the Soviet Communist plan to change human nature from individualistic to communal.  Essentially, communism destroys individual initiative in its effort to make the individual a cog in the greater governmental machine.  The individual mind and soul ultimately become fully subject to the Communist State.  And conformity is a necessary part of losing oneself to that “greater good.”

The other day a friend was looking to replace some floor tile from about 20-plus years ago.  The tile had been hand-crafted.  After visiting not only the original source but similar vendors, one tile shopkeeper explained to her not only how such tile was made but that the reason it is no longer made, the reason such artisanship is dying if not dead, is that now the demand is for mass-produced items that will all be identical. 

Somehow this seems to put us in a similar place as the Soviet apartment dwellers.  No unique, individualistic style available.  This is underscored when one flips through a decorating magazine.  Everything is rather impersonal and certainly mass produced.  Not unlike the Soviet apartments where one could feel equally at home in a neighbor’s apartment as their own, when one looks at contemporary and popular decorating design, there seems to be little room for individual style.  One might easily adapt to a neighbor’s house as their own.

The major difference seems to be that while the Soviets were forced to accept this dehumanization, this removal of individuality, contemporary Americans are seeking it out.  But why?  What is the appeal of giving up one’s individuality to simply become one of the mass-produced humans?  Why would one voluntarily give up individuality for conformity?

This question is not limited to how one decorates one’s surroundings.  We see everywhere a disinclination to stand out as oneself.  And if one does, one is often bullied in one way or another into conformity. 

Of course, it is always easier to conform.  It is easier to simply follow what someone else has decided for you. But it also means giving up your individual humanity – that which makes you unique and whom you are.

Growing up in the 50s and 60s I and my peers did anything we could to break from conformity, from a predetermined pronouncement by some other of what we should think and how we should act.  It allowed us to become more fully whom we each were meant to be.  Artisans not only flourished but were appreciated, as was individual creativity and individual thought.  Making one’s own decisions is a very special form of freedom that is perhaps not well appreciated in America today.

Today, individual thought, and especially thought which counters the views of someone else, is considered unacceptable.  Groups, especially those in power, feel that it is perfectly OK to silence those with opposing views until they are willing to conform.  And too many seem more than willing to do so without giving any thought whatsoever to what they are doing.

I realize the pendulum swings, but why would we allow it to swing back to the limiting place of conformity?  Do those who conform and demand that others similarly conform to their politically and socially correct agenda realize what they are doing?  Not just to themselves, but to our society as a whole?  I think that President Kennedy said it well:

If we want to maintain our freedom, if we want to not stagnate, if we want to be all that we can be, then we must retain our individuality and with it our humanity and our very freedom to be the unique self that we each are meant to be.

Here is an example of the Soviet Khrushchyovka apartment blocks and interior plan, home to most Russians during the Soviet era:

Like Rabid Dogs (or Communists)

 

Like rabid dogs the Democrats circle, each trying to outdo one another in their punishment of Conservatives and Trump supporters.  They are about as rational as rabid dogs.  (see for example my recent post on why there actually are no grounds for impeachment, but rational minds could and should agree on censure and be done with it.  LINK ) 

The scene in the capital and wherever the Left gathers (including on social media) reminds me of some old black and white movie where the mob, with pitchforks and torches, goes after the innocent that they perceive as evil.

But we don’t have to go to movies or other fiction to see what is going on.  History gives us a perfect picture. 

The Library of Congress in its Russian Archives has a number of documents that reveal the inner workings of the Soviet Union, including during and immediately after the revolution.  Here are some quotations from the Library's exhibition of those documents:

In the years immediately following their accession to power in 1917, the Bolsheviks took measures to prevent challenges to their new regime, beginning with eliminating political opposition. When the freely-elected Constituent Assembly did not acknowledge the primacy of the Bolshevik government, Vladimir Lenin dissolved it in January 1918. The Left Socialist Revolutionary Party, which protested the action, withdrew from the Bolshevik coalition in March, and its members were automatically branded enemies of the people. Numerous opposition groups posed military threats from various parts of the country, placing the survival of the revolution in jeopardy. Between 1918 and 1921, a state of civil war existed.

 

Bolshevik policy toward its detractors, and particularly toward articulate, intellectual criticism, hardened considerably. Suppression of newspapers, initially described as a temporary measure, became a permanent policy. Lenin considered the Constitutional Democrats (Kadets) the center of a conspiracy against Bolshevik rule. In 1919, he began mass arrests of professors and scientists who had been Kadets, and deported Kadets, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Nationalists. The Bolshevik leadership sought rapidly to purge Russia of past leaders in order to build the future on a clean slate.

Having come to power in October 1917 . . . Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks spent the next few years struggling to maintain their rule against widespread popular opposition. They had overthrown the provisional democratic government and were inherently hostile to any form of popular participation in politics. In the name of the revolutionary cause, they employed ruthless methods to suppress real or perceived political enemies. The small, elite group of Bolshevik revolutionaries which formed the core of the newly established Communist Party dictatorship ruled by decree, enforced with terror.

 

This tradition of tight centralization, with decision-making concentrated at the highest party levels, reached new dimensions under Joseph Stalin. As many of these archival documents show, there was little input from below. The party elite determined the goals of the state and the means of achieving them in almost complete isolation from the people. They believed that the interests of the individual were to be sacrificed to those of the state, which was advancing a sacred social task. Stalin's “revolution from above” sought to build socialism by means of forced collectivization and industrialization, programs that entailed tremendous human suffering and loss of life.

 

Although this tragic episode in Soviet history at least had some economic purpose, the police terror inflicted upon the party and the population in the 1930s, in which millions of innocent people perished, had no rationale beyond assuring Stalin's absolute dominance. By the time the Great Terror ended, Stalin had subjected all aspects of Soviet society to strict party-state control, not tolerating even the slightest expression of local initiative, let alone political unorthodoxy.

 

These harsh measures alienated a large number of the intellectuals who had supported the overthrow of the tsarist order. The suppression of democratic institutions evoked strong protests from academics and artists, who felt betrayed in their idealistic belief that revolution would bring a free society. Writers who had emigrated shortly after the revolution published stinging attacks on the new government from abroad. As a result, further exit permits for artists were generally denied.

 

The disenchantment of the majority of intellectuals did not surprise Lenin, who saw the old Russian intelligentsia as a kind of rival to his “party of a new type,” which alone could bring revolutionary consciousness to the working class.

I think the above speaks for itself, or at least it does to anyone with a clear mind.  What we are seeing in the current days is an extreme, concerted, devoted, and fanatical effort by the Left to silence the voices of any opposition to them or their causes.  This has to remind anyone with even the smallest familiarity with history of not only the Russian revolution, but similar Leftist takeovers elsewhere. 

The above gives one an idea of the sort of progression that such silencing can take – towards complete suppression of the people by a power-hungry ruling class.  Do not think that it cannot happen in America.  The question is, will we let it?

"Have you volunteered?"

It’s So Much More Than Just the Biden Coverup

By now you are (or should be) aware of the fact that the press conveniently ignored and suppressed the Hunter Biden investigation until after the election.  Now, when the result is fairly certain, they begin to report it, though generally with the best spin possible. 

We should all be appalled about their coverup, but the concern goes or should go far beyond that.  Anyone who does not believe their vote this election was at least in part manipulated by the media is dreaming.  But, beyond vote manipulation, we should all be concerned about the way that more generally our thinking is being manipulated.    

        The Hunter Biden Affair
First, a quick recap of the Hunter Biden affair. If you are not inclined to research the actual documents, two current opinion pieces present the key facts fairly objectively and I will quote from them in this summary. They are from the Wall Street Journal LINK-HERE  and The Hill LINK-HERE 

If you only read the mainstream Left media or get your news from social media, you probably don’t remember when the Biden story broke last October.  The New York Post published an exclusive story about Hunter Biden being under investigation.  There was a laptop and incriminating email from and to Hunter including about arranging a meeting between his father Joe and executives of the Ukrainian oil company with which his father may have used his influence when he was Vice President.  There are texts and witness statements from people close to Biden. 

The story’s sources were verified.  Here is what happened to that story:  It and any reference to it was banned from Twitter and accounts were locked down; other media outlets and all Democrats simply and immediately dismissed it as either Russian disinformation or a smear campaign by Trump and the Republicans. 

Here is what some of the more popular “news” outlets said:

Politico: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”;
CNN: “The anatomy of the New York Post's dubious Hunter Biden story.”;
Washington Post: “The truth behind the Hunter Biden non-scandal”;
New York Times: “Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It: Inside the White House’s secret, last-ditch effort to change the narrative, and the election — and the return of the media gatekeepers.”;
Taxpayer-funded NPR: "We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories. And we don't want to waste the listeners' and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions."

Leslie Stahl interviewed President Trump for 60 minutes and here is a portion of that interview relating to the Biden story:

Stahl (response when Trump brought up the topic): “This is the most important issue in the country right now?” 
Trump: “It’s a very important issue to find out whether a man’s corrupt who’s running for president, who’s accepted money from China, and Ukraine, and from Russia. . . .Take a look at what’s going on, Leslie, and you say that shouldn’t be discussed? I think it’s one of the biggest scandals I’ve ever seen, and you don’t cover it.”
Stahl: “Well, because it can’t be verified.  I’m telling you —”
Trump: “Of course it can be verified.  Excuse me, Leslie, they found a laptop…”
Stahl: “It can’t be verified.”

As the Hill article notes, “Well, it's difficult to verify anything when you don't bother to check under the hood in the first place, right? Because that's exactly what happened here, except that the cake was baked with a condemnation of the few who decided to pursue the story.”

None of these responses should surprise us.  Before the NY Post Story, there were earlier reports that Hunter’s position on the board of Ukrainian energy company Bursima was tied to improper influence by his then Vice President father Joe.  The media chose to ignore this along with Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley, the chairmen of investigating Senate committees who in September released a joint report detailing some of Hunter’s million-dollar dealings with politically connected foreigners. The report said they raised “serious counterintelligence and extortion concerns relating to Hunter Biden and his family.” And as the WSJ states, the press merely “yawned.”

But now, the election is over, Hunter admitted that he is under investigation, and the story can no longer be ignored (although, the press is putting the best spin possible on it to make it as innocuous as possible for presumptive president-elect Biden).

            Omission Bias
There was widespread omission bias by the media and big tech.  Omission bias is “when an outlet or publication purposely suppresses or outright ignores a newsworthy story that is carried by others.”  In this case the story carrier was the NY Post and the suppressing (actually outright banning) outlets were the rest of the media.      

The Hill piece notes “There are two kinds of bias in the media. First there is the kind we regularly see from many – not all – outlets in broad daylight, which includes openly rooting for one political party while echoing rapid-response opposition research against another. And then there is the more invisible, insidious variety — the bias of omission.”

Clearly, the Hunter problem is a clear example of this insidious bias.  But it is not in any way the only example.  For four years we have had the worst spin possible put on anything that President Trump did while any achievements were either downplayed or ignored.  Ask those who get their news from the mainstream or social media or late-night TV.  They never heard about Trump’s criminal justice reform, about his peace accords in the Middle East, about his work to improve the economic status of minorities or to preserve funding for Black colleges.  They don’t know the positive effects that his re-negotiated trade agreements had for American businesses.  And the positives that they have heard about are couched in such things as:  the previous administration set up the ability for him to do this or that; despite a litany of negatives, he did one small thing; etc.  They still believe that the Obama border cages did not exist before Trump took office. 

The political bias is clear and it is indeed a bias of omission rather than just spin.  That is dangerous because without facts, with a preconceived narrative presented to us, we are bound within the facts of the particular narrative being presented.  Our views are being bent to fit within someone else’s narrative.

That should anger us.  And not just because the press is not doing its job of presenting us with fair and unbiased facts.  It should anger us because it means that they are trying to change, create, and determine the way that we think about issues or people.

That the press creates a narrative for us means that they are attempting to manipulate and mold our thinking, and that should be of deep concern to every American.

               The Manipulation goes beyond Political Viewpoint
Not just the news, but everywhere around us our freedom of thought is being interfered with if not obstructed. The Academy Awards now require certain identity qualifications for actors and staff.  Try to get a grant in any of the arts without having a “social justice” aspect to your work.  LeBron James was awarded Time’s athlete of the year because of his activism (I don’t deny that he is a great athlete, but that goes unmentioned in this “athletic” award). 

The political correctness and thought control goes beyond popular entertainments.  People are fired for speaking their mind if it is not in agreement with the appropriate political correctness.  A doctor had his license revoked after giving a view of COVID precautions that was not that of the mainstream.  A medical professor at Harvard expressed the more widespread danger of this sort of action to science generally:  science requires that people question; when questioning is silenced, when people become afraid to speak out, then science cannot progress.  Nor can anything else.

In Russia following the revolution the Communists created a series of 5-year plans to lead the country more and more toward socialism.  Contrary to popular belief, these plans were not just industrial or manufacturing goals.  They also governed things like the arts, media, and most every aspect of life.  The goal was to create a new type of human being, to turn the individual into a communist, a communal being that was little more than an automaton for the State.  The individual voice was no longer welcome and everything the people did, read, watched, or interacted with was designed to display the (often false) positivity and beauty of communism and the proper behavior of the communist.

So, when the media commits acts of omission and when it presents clear positive bias for its narrative and negative bias against those who disagree, when the arts present only one view of life as that which should be lived and strived for, when athletics become about how good an activist (for the right cause) rather than athlete you are, when you cease questioning either because you are afraid to or simply not allowed to, when these things happen, remember this:  media can change your thinking, remold who you are.  The Soviets tried it, and it worked for 75 years. But those 75 years were far from the utopia that the people were told it was.

We live in dangerous times.  This is a post-truth America.  I’d like to think that those whose votes were manipulated this election cycle will wake up when they see the bait and switch that occurred.  I doubt they will because the media will continue to hide what is inconvenient to its narrative.  More dangerous is the media, film, music, entertainment generally that is with us 24/7.  That and the social shunning of those who question or disagree. 

We are definitely being manipulated and the danger is that we end up losing ourselves.  Stay alert.  Keep questioning.  And most importantly, think for yourself.

 

How Socialism Slithers In

While Socialism sometimes takes over a country by violence (e.g. the Russian revolution), at other times it is voted in (e.g. Spain in the 1930s and Venezuela upon the election of Hugo Chavez).  It is much harder to cause the end to Socialism without violence (e.g. Venezuela today) and sometimes the violence leads to something worse (e.g. Franco took power by overthrowing the socialist government that preceded him). 

This is one reason why it is important to be careful when we read statements that suggest where a politician’s policies will lead us.  Socialism sounds very enticing on the surface.  We all (I hope) know to be wary of promises that Socialism will give us all a living wage along with everything else we want, regardless of our desire or ability to work and contribute.  But the real enticements of socialism can be far subtler.

Take for example the following statement made by the Governor of New Mexico in support of creating an Early Childhood Care Department (NM Sen. Bill 22).   After stating that “a child’s early years of life are formative,” the Governor goes on to state that with the new department and with our “collective” responsibility, we can ensure that New Mexico children “will receive a continuum of care from birth to age 5 and enable the State to lay the groundwork for a successful future that encompasses our values as New Mexicans.” See Albuquerque Journal, 2/21/2019. LINK 

Now, on the surface this sounds lovely.  It sounds like the Governor cares about us and our children.  But, let’s reread and see what it really says.  It tells us that the State will take over the formative years of our children’s lives.  It tells us that the State would like to take control of our children from birth forward.  It tells us that the State feels it is more qualified than the family to “lay the groundwork” for the child’s future.  And, it tells us that the State, not the family should be the one to instill basic values in the child.  (It does not tell us what those values will be!).

To me, the thinking behind the lovely statement seems far too much like Socialism or Communism.  The State will raise the children and teach them how and what to think so that they will be useful cogs in the State machine.  It will replace the love and guidance that parents provide in a child’s formative years with State sponsored indoctrination.  Is this what people really want?

Example number two comes from a mandatory directive from an appointed head of a state agency to the employees within that agency.  The directive is addressed to “Family.”  Now, I don’t know about you, but I use the word “family” to address my actual family (parents, siblings, in laws, cousins, etc.).  When I address correspondence to those with whom I work I address them as “colleagues” or “co-workers” or perhaps in an appropriate instance as “friends.”  They are not my family (nor is the State - at least not yet).

But, more importantly, this directive asks employees to share their thoughts about their work environment in a way that would help to bring more employees into state government.   The request does not provide for anonymous answers (that would have been easy enough to do by setting up a Survey Monkey or anonymous Google share or other similar means).  Without such opportunity for anonymous reflections on less than positive aspects of the job there is no real interest in learning what the employee actually thinks or in understanding ways that the working environment might be improved.  Rather, it provides only one avenue:  to praise the State as employer.  And, it asks the employees to spend work time on this, rather than doing the actual work that the taxpayers are paying them to do.

And yet there is more.  The mandatory request concludes by stating that the sender wants to know “what you think/feel/believe and why.” What sounds, perhaps on the surface as a department head having some interest in supervised employees goes far beyond that.  It seeks to delve into their private and personal beings.  Only a State that has some interest in directing every behavior of individuals in a way that likely removes their individuality would demand to know what every employee believes and why.

These are just two examples of the sort of subtle maneuvering that causes people to support socialist-like agenda without even realizing they are doing so.  They add up.  And before one realizes it they are supporting and voting for a full Socialist agenda. 

I titled this post “How Socialism Slithers In.”  The use of the word slither was an intentional reference to a snake.  Whether you read it as fictional, as a Biblical fact, or as something else, the story of Adam and Eve and the Snake clearly presents evil disguised as offeror of a lovely option (in the form of beautiful fruit) which, if taken, has devastating consequences.  Socialism does the same: it offers what sounds like a lovely utopia, but it always has devastating consequences. 

The Socialism Snake beckons to us more and more zealously these days.  It is subtle and quiet as it slithers into our lives.  We need to be vigilant and see the snake for what it is.   The utopia it offers is nothing more than smoke and mirrors hiding a life without freedom and likely filled with misery.

A Trigger Warning for Christmas?

I’m thinking that maybe I should put a trigger warning* on the Christmas cards I’m about to send out.  They have a picture of the nativity (a reproduction of a 15^th century painting). 

*Trigger warning for those who are not familiar with the term is “a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).”  Teachers and professors are advised (sometimes required) to give such a warning to students when a subject to be addressed in class might prove upsetting to some.  

While my consideration of a trigger warning for my card is primarily in jest, it is also in response to learning that an associate professor of clinical psychology and sexuality studies from Minnesota, posted on his Twitter account that the “virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen,” and “There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario.” He concluded the tweet by writing “Happy holidays.”

So, those of us who enjoy Christmas, for religious or other reasons, can now consider ourselves complicit with those sexual predators called out by the MeToo movement.  We are also not to listen to a variety of Christmas or Winter season songs – “Baby Its Cold Outside” (date rape); “I’m Dreaming Of A White Christmas” (racist); “Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer” (bullying), “Deck the Halls” (homophobic). I haven’t heard complaints yet, but I’m sure “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” is a symbol of elder abuse.  Of course, we already have learned that Charlie Brown is racist from his Thanksgiving special.   And, the movie “Elf” includes the song “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” so it too must go.  I’m sure there is a long list of other offensive Christmas activities that we will eventually hear about.

Once upon a time in a Children’s story the Grinch stole Christmas.  There are real grinches who would not only spoil the fun of Christmas but put an end to it altogether.  They remind us that it is really a recycled pagan holiday, that we don’t know when Jesus was born, and that the word “Christmas” is not in the Bible.   We already know we should not be using the word Christmas – if we must give a season greeting it should be the generic “Happy Holidays.”

Debates.org has a debate poll asking the question “Should Christmas be abolished?”  The result:  49% yes, 51% no.  Reasons for yes include that the holiday is racist, sexist, and Christian, that it “gives false hope” to children, and that it is for capitalists.

Once upon a time in this country we were more tolerant.  Even if a holiday were not one that we chose to celebrate, we were tolerant of those who did.   We were not offended by, nor did we look for everything possible by which we could be offended in the holidays, beliefs, and activities of others.  I grew up on a street with Christians and Jews.  They did not celebrate each other’s holidays, but neither did they take offense at them.  They respected the other’s views and were tolerant of them.  They did not try to take the joy out of them or spoil them or end them altogether.

Today we do not have such tolerance.  Those who oppose Christmas are not content to let others enjoy the holiday.  Instead they would impose guilt, doubt, hatred on those who do.

In soviet Russia, the State took charge of what people should believe.  The goal was to establish State atheism.  Religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools.  Believers had to worship secretly; public displays of religion were prohibited.

Is that where this over-eager hunt for Christmas offenses leads?  It is certainly in line with the autocratic mind-set of dictatorship.  And with what seems to be more and more the prevalent mind-set of the progressives in this country.  The Democrats (most recently via Sen. Hirono) have told us that they are just too smart for the rest of us.  Perhaps that is why they believe that it is their job to tell us how to think and to act, what to celebrate and what is just too offensive, what we should feel guilty about and why we should just never be able to simply enjoy life without shame and guilt for our many sins and misdeeds.  And, among those, apparently, is the joy and fun of Christmas.

Lenin wrote, “Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.”  Marxism-Leninism advocates the suppression and ultimately the disappearance of religious beliefs, considering them to be "unscientific" and "superstitious”.

That is communism; we live in a country that protects a variety of beliefs and expects others (even those who think they are smarter than our bourgeois working class) to be tolerant of them.  The current war on seemingly every aspect of Christmas joy is simply a part of the war on everything that does not conform to one particular point of view.  It is a war, that if successful, will change this country completely and make it reminiscent of the joyless communism of the USSR.