Feeding the War Machine: An Alternative Perspective on Islam and Religious Fundamentalism

       I love freedom of expression. It allows the great Ignorami of the world to convey their shortsightedness in all kinds of ways. What I like even more about freedom of expression is that we also have the right to respond using whatever words we wish to use, no matter how unpopular they may be. The image above conveys a few messages to me; mostly that Christianity is a superior religion. Islam is an inferior religion. Islam is a religion solely responsible for the destruction and arrested development of countries that are predominantly Islamic...and dusty. And that Christianity is a religion solely responsible for the rapid development of countries that are predominantly Christian. The image conveys other messages as well. Where the image was posted and why is another message I can take away. In light of the recent attacks in Paris by Muslim "Extremists" (I'll get to why I quoted that word in a second), there have been many postings of propaganda circulating the internet in order to feed a narrative meant to demonstrate the false idea that Islam is a destructive philosophy of human limitation and that it's a threat to the world. What worries me the most about this kind of propaganda is not that it only misrepresents real Muslims, but that it inadvertently misrepresents persons of other religious belief systems as well. It also serves to dehumanize people who follow a belief system we often misunderstand and/or staunchly disagree with. So who or what benefits the most from this kind of propaganda? Today I'll be talking about the role propaganda has played in the misrepresentation of Islam, religion, and how its phony narratives contribute to the world's real enemy; the International War Machine.

       I'll begin this by telling a story most people have not heard. Once upon a time, Islam founded a civilization that was the most advanced civilization in the world, even more so than Christian civilization. During the Dark Ages, while most of Europe lived in muddy shacks, Islamic cities were developing themselves in ways that most Europeans at the time couldn't even imagine. Their contributions to medicine, surgical techniques, mathematics, encyclopedias, almanacs, and a whole variety of other inventions, art, philosophy, and ideas (still used today) made a gargantuan contribution to Europe's Renaissance movement, which helped to bring Europe out of the Dark Ages. This prosperity of Islamic civilization continued on up through to the fall of Ottoman Empire. So what happened between then and now? Why are so many Arab nations bordering between the 2nd and 3rd world while the West continues to develop in the 1st? To go into every detail would probably require writing a 500+ page book with hundreds of sources, so I'll jump to the part that I believe is the greatest contributor for re-making the world as it exists today; World War I.

       With the exception of the timeline encompassing the Crusades and the surrender of Jerusalem in the late 12th Century, the West had little in conflict with Arab nations on the basis of religion. The struggle between the West and the Ottoman Empire during WWI was a result of their alliance with Germany at the time, and the U.S. was practically suckered into WWI for the sake of "doing the right thing" for our allies against "those evil Germans!" Keep in mind, there were moments in history when propaganda depicted Germans as crazy, mindless, and bloodthirsty savages, much in the way it depicts Muslims, today. For U.S. allies: Britain, France, and Russia (at the time), we went to war and defeated Germany. This defeat of Germany and her allies: Austria-Hungary and Turkey also resulted in the Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire; a process which ended in 1922 and created the "Middle East" as we presently know it (with the exception of Israel because it didn't exist at that time). 

       So what happened after that? Well, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) was then granted Palestinian territories by Britain via the Balfour Declaration. This was because the Palestinian territories were once part of Ottoman rule, but were later mandated to British colonialism after the war ended.

Side-note: The Balfour Declaration was an official document which legitimized a prior backdoor agreement between prominent German Jews (The Rothschilds) of the WZO and Great Britain. So what were the Zionists' payment to Great Britain for such a piece of land? The U.S. involvement in WWI to help Britain defeat Germany, of course. Shortly after the deal took place, the newspapers (which were and still are owned by prominent Jewish Zionists) in the United States went from having a neutral stance towards the Great War (and often times a pro-stance towards Germany) to a "Germans must die!" narrative. This prompted many young Americans to enlist in the armed forces in a call to arms against the "German monstrosity." So, how did the Germans react when they first heard the news of the Balfour Declaration? They flipped a shit, is what happened. They suddenly discovered the U.S. involvement in WWI and the subsequent defeat of Germany and her allies was first orchestrated at the hands of prominent German Jew Zionists for a piece of land that had nothing to do with Germany. And the German Zio-Jews were willing to sell out their own nation and all its' gentile inhabitants in order to get it. This prompted a sharp rise in the resentment toward Jews in Germany at that time, setting the stage for Hitler's Nazi Party, the Holocaust, and their roles in World War II. The War Machine is always hungry. She always needs... to feed! She must eat. All she gets is filthy Orcses (ok, you get the idea).

       World War I also ended the age of absolute monarchy by means of a revolutionary storm which boded just as much trouble to the post-Ottoman regions as it did for most of Europe. As most of the Ottoman Empire was fragmented into various states throughout the Middle East, political instability became an ever-growing problem and those problems continue to echo this day. It is through this political instability, the revolutionary dismantling and reassembling of government bodies, European interests and colonization, and lack of proper leadership that has mostly contributed to the state of arrested development we presently see in many Arab nations. For hundreds of years before this, Islam did quite well for itself and the "War on Terror" never existed during those times, either. So how did "Islamic Extremism" become such a problem in the modern world? Well, the War Machine got tired of eating Germans by the end of World War II, so it decided to switch its appetite to the consumption of Arabs, instead.

      Currently, there exists a trinity of sinister forces at work in this world: Zio-Militarism, Cultural Marxism, and Islamic Extremism, all of which represent a philosophy that is dangerous to everyone. Zio-Militarism represents its' justification of ethnic cleansing of Arab people, the squandering of natural resources in the region, the maltreatment of Palestinians, and the perpetual state of war between Western and Arab nations carried out by the Israeli government and her horrifically unaware puppets (mainly the United States and Great Britain). This movement has existed since the Israeli occupation began in 1948. The second being Cultural Marxism, which is much less of a physical manifestation in the world today as it once was (especially since the fall of the Soviet Union), but still plays an active role in the slow subversion of cultures and political systems around the world into a primal society of perversion; lacking religion, morality, and human compassion. Now, these two forces over the course of decades contributed to the rise of what we call "Radical Islam" or "Islamic Extremism," which represents the most extreme method in which Arabs can resist the first two forces, both of which they consider to be "dangerous philosophies of the West" and an unjustified threat to the Arab world and its inhabitants, both Christians and Muslims. It is also important to consider that the founding members of the Frankfurt School (the Jewish think-tank that invented Marxism/Communism/Atheism as a tool to subvert and enslave a nation and destroy its cultural identity) were the same people who supported and funded the initial Zionist movement that has manifested over the course of a century into what we now know as Israel. Muslim extremists are often phony Muslims, who greatly misunderstand and intentionally misrepresent the teachings of Muhammad as a tool to gain support from other extremists who cannot convey their frustration with the west by any other means outside the use of violence. Yes, they have committed terrible crimes against innocent people and yes, they should be held accountable for those crimes. They are also, however, a manifestation of what happens when a particular group of people are incessantly exposed to an unprecedented level of injustice over the course of several decades. Their numbers, however, account for a fraction of the total Muslim population in the world. So it would be unjust to paint the entire Muslim population with the "terrorist" brush. In the pre-Israel world, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived alongside each other as neighbors and would even babysit each others' children at times. They didn't care about religious differences back then. So, the general narrative that conveys Islamic extremism hates the west because we live in free, non-Sharia-Law, and non-Muslim societies are false. Real Muslims don't hate the west for those reasons at all. In fact, the spark that ignited the whole Arab-Spring movement in 2011 was for the sole purpose of obtaining basic human rights, freedom of expression, and democracy within their own nations. All the best things about Western society are also coveted by Arabs (Christians and Muslims) across many Arab nations. Their only beef with western society begins and ends with its overwhelming support of Israel and its ideological roots, in addition to Israel's lack of accountability for human rights violations against the Palestinians.

Take a moment to consider some of the Islamic Extremist groups we hear a lot about in the media:

• Hezbollah "Party of God" - A Shiite group based in southern Lebanon, supported by Syria and Iran and holds seats in the Lebanese Parliament; built for the sole purpose of resisting Israel and its expansion efforts into southern Lebanon.
• Hamas "Enthusiasm" - A Sunni group based in the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian territories and also an elected authority of Palestine; formed for the purpose of liberating Palestine from Israeli occupation and to expose Israeli war crimes against Palestinians.
• Al-Nusra "The Victory" - A Sunni group and Al-Qaeda affiliate based in Syria for the purpose of overthrowing the oppressive Assad regime, the head of the Syrian Ba'ath Party; a Marxist political party.
• Al-Qaeda "The Base" - A Sunni group formed (with the help of U.S. agents) during the Soviet-Afghan War to fight the Soviets and were (surprisingly) U.S. allies during the Cold War as they provided vital intel on the Soviets for the United States during that time.
• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - A Sunni group that most Muslims, Arab Nations, and other Islamic extremist groups actively oppose on all grounds: religiously, philosophically, or militarily. 

        So, you'll see that most of these groups started up as resistance movements against a particular ideology, whether it be Israeli Zionism or Marxism, the Arabs felt were a threat to their identity and their way of life. At the start, it had very little or nothing to do with religious difference or intolerance. It all comes down to politics and the preservation of a culture's identity; along with several decades of political instability, cultural degradation, and corruption within their own nations' governments that began at the close of World War I in 1918. What they fail to realize, however, is that their violent and unacceptable behavior towards ordinary citizens of the west (like the recent attacks in Paris) can only perpetuate the narratives brought against them, which allows the west to easily justify military intervention. In the end, the only beneficiary is Israel.

     

       "But Israel is our ally!" Yes, we certainly are Israel's ally, being that our military carries out a great deal of destruction and exasperates instability within Arab nations the Israeli government deems a threat to its existence; further perpetuating the fomentation of Islamic Extremist groups. We certainly are a good friend to Israel, but I'm not so convinced the relationship is as bi-lateral as the media makes it out to be. The Israeli government will gladly take our billions in annual contributions and our military might, but smile inwardly whenever people are killed in a terrorist attack. Benjamin Netanyahu and his aides have said so themselves that 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on Americans are good for Israel, because it feeds the "War on Terror" narrative, justifies military campaigns against Arab nations, like Iraq and Afghanistan (which 'coincidentally' flank Iran's eastern and western borders), and garners support for Israel and her interests. Not to mention the U.S. spends an overwhelming amount of money conducting counter-intelligence operations against subversive Mossad agents working within the United States. And has Israel ever helped us in our military campaigns? Has Israel ever sent their own soldiers to the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside ours? No, they'd prefer to let "the dumb, American, Christian goyim" handle the heavy lifting for them. America stands to gain little from these military campaigns, but loses so much in the process; not just in the way of war spending, but in the number of soldiers lives lost, the number of civilian casualties lost in the cross-fire, and the loss of our own humanity as well. And has our war in Iraq solved any problems on the "War on Terror" front? No. We now have the Islamic State steamrolling the region as a result of the power vacuum left in Iraq after we finally decided to bring our soldiers home. And now our political leaders proceed to entertain the idea of sending our troops back to fix the new ISIS problem, likely resulting in another arduous decade of war the U.S. really cannot afford to wage at the moment. But, the War Machine must feed! So, when will America finally realize that Israel is more of a liability than she is worth? When will America finally realize that our Israeli-centric foreign policy has served only to create more enemies in the Middle East, more American lives lost, more financial corruption, moral corruption, and more tragedy not just for our nation, but for other nations as well? When will The U.S. decide to let Israel stand on its own two feet, to stay out of Middle East affairs, and choose to no longer play games with the lives of ordinary people across the globe who simply want to live their lives and be left alone? In 1796, George  Washington said the following:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? ...

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. ...

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. ...

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."

                               - George Washington
                                           

If George Washington were alive and saw the state of our nation today, he would be disgusted.

- JSR

References

Fry, L.,Shishmaref, P. (1997). Waters Flowing Eastward: The War Against the Kingship of Christ.  CPA Books, 4th Ed.

Lina, J. (2014). Under the Sign of the Scorpion. Referent Publishing. 

Ostrovsky, V., Hoy, C. (1990). By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer. St. Martin's Press. New York

Reed, D. (2012). The Controversy of Zion. Bridger House Publishers, Inc.

Weir, A. (2014). Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. was Used to Create Israel. Self-publication. 

Fad Nauseam! The Contagious Outrage Over the Government Shutdown, and the Attacks on Ted Cruz and the Tea Party

          So, the government shutdown ended a while ago and should be old news by now, but the political demagoguery regarding key players of the latest Congressional "calamity" reverberates continuously across the airwaves. It doesn't matter where you go to get your news, either. It's everywhere, and it's ridiculous. It's especially frustrating to know that despite all the phony outrage over the government closing for 16 days (ergo giving all "non-essential" government employees a free two-weeks paid vacation plus a raise, which will begin early next year), the media and the press still fail to cover the essential elements of information surrounding the circumstances of the shutdown. All I ever heard from every news source was "It's the Republicans fault!," "They're holding the American People hostage!," "We won't negotiate with this terrorism!" the typical projection we can expect from the congressional left. And again, an absence of facts and valid arguments (or any argument, for that matter). This should not come as a surprise to anyone, however. Any uninformed citizen could have turned on the news (any news) for five minutes and be convinced the entire shutdown was solely the fault of the GOP and the Tea Party without hearing any details explaining why. We also never hear about the actions executed by our Congressional Democrats and the White House only to exacerbate the problem, then blame the outcome of those actions on the GOP and the Tea Party as well.

          The partial government shutdown began on the days leading up to the end of the government fiscal year and the decision to pass legislation on funding the government. Funding the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) is where the conflict in Congress began, which was preceded days earlier on September 24th-25th when Senator Ted Cruz took the stand in the Senate to decry the ACA; a speech that lasted approximately 21 hours. His goal was intended not only to encourage Republicans to continue the fight against the ACA, but to persuade all members of Congress that the ACA would ultimately hurt Americans via increases in premium payments and discontinued policies. It didn't make much difference, however. Some Congressional Republicans ultimately decided to concede in their struggle against Obamacare, most of whom swept entire elections based on their pledge to fight it. Despite what you may have heard on the news, this was really the only involvement Ted Cruz had with the partial government shutdown; a 21 hour speech and a single vote in the U.S. Senate. A few news station websites have released shutdown timelines beginning from Sep 19th and ending on Oct 17th, You can see CNN's shutdown 2013 timeline here. So, if CNN had actually read their own timeline rather than blaming Republicans for the shutdown, they would eventually discover that it was not the GOP, House Speaker Boehner, Sen. Cruz, or the Tea Party that refused to negotiate (ultimately causing a shutdown), it was actually the Democrats. So here's a brief summary of what happened in Congress between September 20th and October 17th.

Friday, September 20th - The House of Representatives pass a bill to fund the government until Dec 15th, as long as the ACA did not receive funding. With a Republican majority in the House, the bill passed 230-189, but by the time it hit the Senate (Democratic majority), the bill was turned down, as expected. The Republicans certainly didn't expect much of a compromise here.

Tuesday, September 24th - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announces at a press conference the Senate will not pass any legislation that defunds or delays the ACA. Senator Ted Cruz takes the stand on the Senate floor for 21 hours. Sen. Cruz's speech did not delay any votes so his actions could hardly be construed as a filibuster. This is contrary to what most talking heads of the mass media had to say about him, however.

Friday, September 27th - The Senate takes the same bill passed by the House of Representatives and removes all provisions intended to defund the ACA. Another change involved funding the government through to Nov 15, instead of Dec 15th. The bill was passed onto the House of Representatives.

Saturday, September 28th - The House of Representatives debates the bill.

Sunday, September 29th - The House of Representatives votes 231-192 to delay the implementation of the ACA for another year as well as 248-174 for removing the medical device tax (a significant part of the ACA's source of funding). The bill is then sent on to the Senate.

Monday, September 30th - I bolded this particular day for a reason. Pay attention to what happens here because it could change your entire perspective toward this situation. Again, the Senate 54-46 strips all provisions against the ACA passed by the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives again 228-201 pushes to delay the ACA for another year as well as mandating that Congress and its staffers abide by the statute of the ACA, just like that of every other citizen in the country. This would have required the ACA to be all-inclusive. No member of Congress is allowed exemption. The Republicans' mentality for this provision is simply "If it's good for the people, it's good for Congress." Democratic members of Congress apparently disagree. Their sheeple followers will follow suit as well.

          Harry Reid did state on September 24th the Senate wouldn't pass a bill that either defunded or delayed the ACA. Either way, the Senate also rejected the notion of passing Obamacare, even under the premise that members of Congress would also be included. The architects of Obamacare so firmly believe this bill will fix the problems America is faced within our current Healthcare system, yet they so adamantly refuse to include themselves or their families within the stipulations of such legislation.  It's a shame such news was so rarely and briefly mentioned within the labyrinth of timeline articles that were published online. I have not witnessed a single second of television airtime that mentioned these details, either.

          It is also worth noting that as long as big business, unions, special interest groups, and all members of Congress are not required to purchase their own healthcare under the ACA, it will be that much more difficult for the American people to repeal it, even if it turns out to be a total failure. We already see that happening, and I'm not referring to the stupid website; another fad nauseam. A non-functioning website is the least of the policy's problems and is really just a diversion from its real ramifications. Unsurprisingly, the media won't shut up about that, either.

          But, the government did not reopen until October 17. So, what happened in Congress between the time of September 30th and October 17th? The House passed more than a dozen bills to keep certain parts of the federal government running. Paying all active duty military servicemen was one of them. Most of those bills, however, sat on Harry Reid's desk and would never get passed by the Senate. The Democrats, aware the media was making the shutdown out to be the fault of the GOP and the Tea Party, would use that leverage to place further pressure on the House to reopen the government and remove all provisions against the ACA. It eventually worked; so much for compromise. An episode of "Crossfire" on CNN brought Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse together to discuss this matter as well. You can view this video below.

          So, why are people (a sect of the Republican population and all Liberals) hating upon Ted Cruz and the Tea Party so much over this issue? Because they represent of group of people who elected them to fight Obamacare until it is finally repealed. At this point, it seems unrealistic to think that is possible, especially this early. But, what Ted Cruz and the Tea Party did was entirely within the interests of the people who elected them. If there's any reason their supporters are currently dissatisfied with Ted Cruz and the Tea Party is primarily because, in the end, they failed to defund the ACA. Raising the debt ceiling will be a similar circumstance because it's the only solution our Treasury has for America to pay its bills and not go into default. That says a lot about how out of control our government spending has become. It woud be like opening up a new credit card account just to pay the fees on all the other maxed out credit cards. The Tea Party will have no choice but to concede on that issue as well. Despite all this, the Tea Party is still a force to be reckoned with. While there is an estimated 22% of the American population who strongly affiliate themselves with the Tea Party, I personally believe the number is higher than estimated and may continue to grow over time. One can blame the national debt and all the frivolous government spending as a direct result of that.

- JSR

         

Former Soviet Citizen and OWS Members Discuss Communism

       This blog post is long overdue. I've been a tad busy doing...other things the last few months. I recently came across this video on YouTube and thought it would make for an excellent post, especially since it applies so well to the previous articles I've put up. This video is about a former Soviet Citizen discussing Communism with an Occupier at an OWS Rally. I really don't believe there is a better expert on Communism than someone who has personally lived within a communist country, such as Russia. This former Soviet Citizen argues with an Occupier on the fundamentals of Communism and why any attempts a country makes to develop a successful communist (or socialist) system always fails. This video does a well job at illustrating just how blatantly unaware some of these Occupiers are of Communist history throughout Russia as well as other countries, like North Korea and Cuba. The video is about 13 minutes long and a great watch.

          I will say, it takes a lot of guts to speak against a group such as this and I'm relieved to see the participants in this video were able to keep the discussion civil, for the most part. That doesn't always happen. Anyway, the video's author, Vladimir Jaffe, supplements this video with the following dialogue:

"My 2 cents on Socialism, Communism and Capitalism.

1. There have never existed Socialist or Communist countries.

2. Countries that do use these words in the names of the countries or claim to have such system are ALL in reality Totalitarian Dictatorships.

3. There remain only 2 such countries today: North Korea and Cuba. The list used to include USSR, China, Vietnam, Poland, DDR, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique, Angola and many more countries.

4. The best political litmus test to see what category the country belongs to is to see if its citizens can leave it freely: if you get a bullet in the back of your head trying (like crossing the Berlin Wall), it's a Totalitarian Dictatorship a.k.a. "Socialist" or "Communist".

5. Does capitalism fail in some countries? Yes! In what countries? Where the private property and intellectual property laws are lax and corruption is high.

6. Please check where your country belongs based on any of the 2 indexes that use different criteria: International Property Tax Index: http://www.internationalpropertyright... (top 3 in it are Finland, Sweden and Switzerland and the last 3 are Venezuela, Libya , Yemen but it excludes Cuba, North Korea) or Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedoms: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking (top 3 here are Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia and the last 3 are Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea.)

7. So please, don't do disservice to the Scandinavian countries by calling them "Socialist"...

You can learn all you need to know about the "socialized" medicine in USSR here:

http://www.mises.ca/posts/articles/th..."

          It took Russia decades to topple their regime followed by a very slow recovery and the same has yet to happen for North Korea, or Cuba. I could go on a whole new tangent here, but it would really just be a repeat of my last three articles. So, I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you Vladimir Jaffe for posting this video on YouTube and thanks to all my readers for reading/watching. God bless you all.

-JSR

Reference

Jaffe, V. (2013). Former Soviet Citizen Confronts Socialists at Occupy Wall Street.

          YouTube. Retrieved from: http://youtu.be/jVe95s6gH1s.

A Lesson from History! The Origin of Leftist Ideology and its Effects on Humanity: Part 3

Above: Soviet Propaganda from 1919 that says: "Workers of the World Unite!" On the left side of this photo you'll see a tired and oppressed people beneath the rule of the Czar. On the right side you'll see the complete opposite. People happily going about their lives with pride and enthusiasm under the communist regime. In reality, however, the quality of life under communism was far from happy; even worse than the quality of life living beneath a Czar autocracy. Fear and despair would be more accurate emotions to describe the life of the communist. Right: Well, this pretty much speaks for itself. I found this pro-Obama poster on a blog site that was radically liberal. Surprised?

Click here for Part I: The Fall of the Czars

Click here for Part II: The March Revolution, The Dumas, and Lenin's Rise to Power

Part III: The Life of the Soviets, the Spread of Communism, & Closing Arguments

          The Soviets were not a happy group of people during WWI. Like Obama, Lenin inherited a mess of a country. The soldiers were still fighting along the war fronts, the economy was a disaster, and production was at an all time low. The people were hopeful, but they had very high expectations for their new government. It didn't take long for Lenin to realize he had bitten off a bit more than he was willing to chew. Lenin immediately pulled the troops out of combat, allowing Germany to focus all their attention on their western fronts against France and England. Lenin signed a peace treaty with Germany, which ultimaely gave Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Ukraine territories over to German occupation. Those territories consisted of about 1/3rd of Russia's farmlands, half of Russia's industry production, and about 90% of Russia's coal. Russian allies, England and France weren't too happy about this. During this time, the Russian people continued to dig in the garbage for food. People typically aren't happy when they're hungry, so in an effort to prevent any counterrevolutionary efforts, Lenin established a military organization called the "Cheka."  Their job was to kill counterrevolutionaries, or rather, anyone who opposed Bolshevik policies for any reason. This period was known as "The Red Scare," which continued all the way through Stalin's regime. On top of that, Lenin announced a new economic policy he called "war communism," part of which involved "labor conscription." Labor conscription means the government has the right to mandate where, when, and at what job every individual was required to work. Lenin also established the "food army," which involved militants paying a friendly visit to all the farmers so they could confiscate ALL of their harvest production; leaving nothing left for the peasants to eat. Other peasants tried to hide some of their production from the food armies, but were usually discovered and confiscated. Eventually, these food armies started confiscating seeds and farm equipment, robbing the peasants of all means needed for future production. Within a year, Russia was struck with famine, which was particularly bad for the peasants living outside the cities. Peasants resorted to cannibalizing either their own, or others' children. There was an estimated death toll of 3-5 million people between 1918 and 1922 as a direct result of famine. As a response, some of the Bolshevik's most faithful groups began to rally against the totalitarian regime. They demanded free speech, freedom of the press (basically the whole U.S. Bill of Rights), free trade unions, and the peasants wanted to use their lands for their own benefit without having to pass everything they earned off to the government. It only took about a year for the people of Russia to decide that communism really wasn't the greatest thing, after all. At the head of this freedom movement were the Russian sailors at the Krondstadt Naval Base, who were once the Bolshevik's most faithful followers. This was known as the Krondstadt Rebellion. Lenin responded to them by sending in Red Army troops. Thousand of sailors were killed and hundreds more were later executed. Communist totalitarianism was there to stay.

          Lenin spent his final days reflecting on the impact of the revolution and the general direction of Russia's future. Lenin was not, in any way, satisfied with the state of "Mother Russia" and the disservice his communist sysem has done to her "children." In his last writings, Lenin described his revolution as a betrayal of the Russian people; a mere replacement of Russian autocracy with an even more oppressing bureaucracy. It wasn't the communism he hoped for, but his hope in communism had not completely faded. While Lenin didn't approve of the direction Russia was heading, his deteriorating health and his deep entrenchment into communist rule made it impossible for him to change the course he had set for the Soviets. Then, there was Stalin; the next dictator of the Soviet Union. Lenin wished to have Stalin removed from his position as General Secretary before it was too late, but Stalin had no intention of giving up his position. Lenin died in 1924 at the age of 54.

          Stalin immediately took control of the Soviet Union shortly after Lenin's death. He removed most of his political friends and adversaries (including Trotsky) by means of exile and intended to carry on the revolution by employing whatever means necessary. For the next 30 years, Stalin would terrify his own people. The "counterrevolutionaries" who were executed under Stalin's regime had it much easier than millions of others who were brave enough to stand against his tyranny. Stalin labeled all his opponents as kulaks (bourgeoise) and were forced to work in labor camps called Gulags. These labor camps literally worked people to death. Gulag workers were not fed, housed, or treated in any way like human beings. The only defense the Russians had against this Red Scare was to place portraits of Stalin inside their homes and to openly praise their dictator in any way they could. Soviet propaganda and the Soviet media would cycle relentless imagery of their dictator accepting gifts and praise from Russian crowds. He was seen holding, hugging, and kissing children. There were many other ridiculously unrealistic portrayals of Stalin, even though he was one of the most evil men to ever exist during the 20th century. Outside of the Stalin film fantasies, the people knew their fellow citizens were disappearing by the millions. No one knew for certain it was the work of Stalin; they certainly had their suspicions, but were completely powerless to do anything about it. For 30 years, this tyranny continued until Stalin finally died in Moscow, 1953 at the age of 75. Stalin's death toll accounted to approximately 20 million people. To put this into perspective, think of Hitler's Holocaust. Approximately 5 million Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust under Hitler. Stalin killed four times that many. After Stalin's death, the Soviet Union's highest military leader, Nikita Krushchev, branded Stalin a criminal and openly publicized the truth of Stalin's crimes committed against the Russian people. The "de-Stalinization" of Russia would continue for the next few years. Anything that even remotely resembled or represented Stalin's regime such as: portraits, statues, books, films, etc. were either burned or destroyed by Russian citizens. In 1961, alongside Lenin, Stalin's body was removed from the Red Square Mausoleum. To this day, the Russian people struggle to rebuild a broken country after decades of communist tyranny.

         The Spread of Communism was one of Lenin's primary goals during his rein over the Soviets throughout the early 20s. In 1920, Lenin started the Congress of the Communist International in Moscow where revolutionaries from all westernized countries (including the U.S.) would meet. The purpose of the Congress was to start a worldwide revolution in an effort to spread communism to all industrialized nations of the world. They would begin by teaching Marxist ideology throughout all public schools and universities. Eventually, every open position within the government, the public schools, and the universities throughout Russia mandated its occupant to fully accept Marxist ideology in order to qualify for the position. Communism eventually spread its way to 23 countries throughout Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean. Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Hungary, Laos, Mongolia, Mozambique, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Somalia, South Yemen, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia all fell to communism within a few decades of Soviet influence. China was especially impacted. Mao Zedong immediately adopted the newly infiltrated Marxist ideology into Chinese culture. Mao's rule of China and his Chinese revolution would lead to a death toll of approximately 40 million people; twice that of the number of deaths reported under Stalin's rule. Fortunately, most of the countries listed above did not remain under communist rule. Today only five communist coutries remain: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Throughout the past century, communism contributed to the slaughter of approximately 100 million people; most of which died long and torturous deaths at the hands of Marxist fanatics.

Sidenote: During the early stages of the Cold War, Soviet infiltrators held high ranking positions in the United States government. A man named Alger Hiss was one of them. Alger Hiss was a soviet spy and communist who worked directly under Franklin D. Roosevelt as the Assistant Secretary of State. Hiss was also a Harvard law graduate; as were many other communist infiltrators during that time. Whittaker Chambers (ex-communist and Soviet defector) announced the names of at least 200 soviet spies working within high ranking positions of the federal government. Chambers announced Hiss as just one of those agents. The Liberal media denounced Chamber's accusations and branded him a lunatic despite the overwhelming level of evidence supporting his claims. At the same time, the U.S. Army began work on a secret enterprise known as The Venona Project, which basically involved a decryption of Soviet cables between U.S. and Soviet officials. Upon decryption of these cables, The Venona Project discovered Chamber's accusations were indeed true. Venona listed the names of 204 Soviet spies working within the U.S. government; all of whom labeled themselves as Liberal, Progressive, or Democrat. During the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, the Democratic Party knowingly sheltered communist traitors, all of whom were guilty of relaying sensitive, nuclear information and technology directly to Soviet officials in Russia. Joseph Stalin knew about the development of the U.S. Atomic Bomb even before President Truman learned about it. This level of espionage was directly responsible for keeping the United States on the brink of total nuclear annihilation throughout the Cold War. Among the people listed by Venona were Ethel and Julius Rosenburg (convicted soviet spies). The Rosenburgs are, even today, revered as martyrs by the Liberal media. For decades, the Liberal media refused to accept the overwhelming evidence against communist infiltrators operating within the Democratic party and working to undermine the U.S. government. Even after the Venona files were de-classified and made public in 1995, Americans everywhere were finally able to see the truth, but the liberal media still has no intention of conceding on the matter.

Closing Arguments

           By now, you're probably asking yourself "What's your point? Why is this relevant? Communism is practically gone in today's world and therefore, poses no perceivable and imminent threat." I'll answer that question by saying this... Even after the Russian revolution, a century of bloody, communist history, the Cold War, The Venona Project, etc. etc... Marxism is very much a thriving ideology in today's world. It is especially concentrated within universities, both domestic and abroad. I know this because I spent six years taking university classes. I studied Sociology. I read the texts. I did the coursework. I got my degree. For a while, I even believed in it. Despite the total indoctrination of Marxist theology in today's university settings, every class has completely and utterly FAILED to include a thorough review of communist history and the terrible crimes it has imposed on humanity. Of course, most university professors don't want you to know "those" details. Either that, or they don't even know it themselves. Even though some people have chosen to acknowledge the historical record of Marxism-in-practice, the ideology of Marxism is still a utopian and fantastical idea among thousands of uninformed scholars; much like it was with Lenin during his youth. The only difference between Lenin and today's scholars is Lenin didn't have the luxury of learning from a Marxist history; he was the first person to truly apply its ideology in a real-world setting. Take a moment to turn on the news, read today's political cartoons, or check Facebook for the latest explosion of liberal propaganda. You will see the underlying messages of Marxist ideology everywhere. The demonization of privileged and successful individuals (Romney and the rest of the Bourgeois population). The stabs against capitalism (The Occupy Movement). The sensational and sympathetic coverage of the underprivileged masses (the Proletariat). "Workers of the World Unite!" (pro-union Obama posters). It is all delicately channeled Marxism making its way from the universities, to the mass media, to Hollywood, and finally to the easily-influenceable minds of the American people. Politically speaking, the American mind-set in today's world bears much resemblance to the mindset of the 1917, Russia. There is absolutely nothing "new" or "progressive" about today's "liberal" ideas. Their ideology has existed for almost an entire century. They have been applied, tested, and failed in at least two dozen countries throughout the world; a testament to the blatant differences between ideology and reality. It has always been Karl Marx's plan to catalyze the determinism of an imminent global revolution. Even today, his ambitions survive and are carried on by scholars, professors, actors, journalists, and Democratic leaders; mostly by those who are too lost in their own ideologies to possess a solid perception of reality. With every passing year, the U.S. inches further and further in this direction. At what point should we decide, as a country, when enough is enough? At what point will we finally awaken to the reality of this threat? As an informed citizen of the last and truly free nation left in the world today, what will you do? What will you say? How will you vote? These are difficult questions we really need to ask ourselves if we hope to survive as a free nation.

Thanks for reading...and God bless!

- JSR

Reference

Coulter, A. (2003). Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror. Crown 

          Forum. Random House, Inc.

Halliday, E. M., & Black, C. E. (1967). Russia in Revolution. American Heritage Publishing Co.

         

A Lesson from History! The Origin of Leftist Ideology and its Effects on Humanity: Part 2

Above: A 1905 American cartoon depicting the struggles of the Russian proletariat against the oppressive bureaucracy of the ruling Monarch. Little did the Russians know the rise of the Bolshevik regime would only create an even greater monster.

Click here for Part 1: The Fall of the Czars

Part II: The March Revolution, The Dumas, and Lenin's Rise to Power

          The March Revolution was not an entirely unique event in world history. In fact, the spark that ignited the March Revolution was exactly the same spark that ignited the French Revolution in 1789. So, what is this spark that I speak of? Bread. When a country starts to run dangerously low on bread, people have a historical record of reacting violently. Why is this? Because bread has always been the primary source for nutrition and sustenance among a nation's working class. When the bread runs out, they have nothing to eat. This was the same for the workers and peasants of Russia in the early 1900s. It was especially hard for peasants in Russia to produce enough food as a result of the brutality of their winter seasons. This places the people of Russia at a distinct disadvantage because they could only grow and harvest crops during the summer months. By March, the people had run dangerously low on wheat products, especially since most food sources were taken from the workers and given to the troops fighting along the war fronts. The soldiers, however, weren't faring along any better. They experienced heavy losses, brutal winters, food rations, and lost battles. Their spirits had faded just as much as their families had back home. When all the bread had gone, the people of Russia (peasants, industry workers, and soldiers) immediately quit their posts and began marching the streets of Petrograd in a full-on strike. Thus, the March Revolution began.

          Just one day before the uprising, Czar Nicholas II boarded a train to monitor efforts on the war front. He had no idea what was about to happen at home. Over the next few days, the streets were full of Russia's proletariat. People carried signs that stated "Down with Monarchy!" Others bore the red flags of socialism. Any police that attempted to control the chaos were shot on sight. Eventually the police dropped their uniforms and either joined the masses or went into hiding. The same happened with soldiers who had not yet joined the movement. Most of them were absorbed into the flow of the crowds. Surprisingly, the Cossacks joined the movement against the police right from the beginning of the strike. Government offices were looted and the debris littered the streets. Despite the uprising of the Russian people, an aura of uncertainty remained. No one really knew what was going to happen next. They only knew things were about to change and that was good enough news for most of them. The crowds eventually moved their way towards the Tauride Palace where The Dumas were being held.

          The Imperial Duma consisted of government officials who would meet to discuss reformations of the Russian State. They were similar to today's Representatives and Senators, only they were not officially elected by the people; they were appointed by the Czar. The establishment of the Duma was not a favorable decision by the Monarchy, but Nicholas II authorized their establishment under pressure of Russian officials in 1905. One of these Duma members, Alexander Kerensky, took charge of the Provisional Government that was to bring order to the Russian chaos. Through a series of meetings, the Duma identified two political parties with different ideas on how to structure the new Russian government. On the left was the Executive Committee of the Soviet who insisted on forming a republic, but would later be taken over by Bolsheviks. This would mean an absolute removal of the Czar and his dictatorial powers. On the right was the Temporary Committee of the Duma, consisted mostly of bourgeois. They insisted on setting up a constitutional monarchy, similar to English government under King George V.  This would mean keeping the Czar on the throne, but removing his dictatorial powers; a figurehead, at best. Kerensky was a member of both committees and insisted no harm come to the Czar, his family, or the Imperial Ministers. Unfortunately for Kerensky, the masses of rioters wanted nothing to do with Imperial royalty and Nicholas II was forced to abdicate his throne on March 15. He was then placed under house arrest with his family in Tsarkoe Selo (a suburb of Petrograd). The Provisional Government failed to meet the general demands of the people, however. Kerensky and the rest of the Provisional Government Ministers intended to carry out the war against Germany as a result of bound agreements between Russia and her allies Great Britain and France. The people wanted the war to stop, but they didn't want to abandon Russia's allies either. Other Russians still felt loyalty to the Czar, even though they were unhappy with the present situation. In the meantime, Lenin (who was previously exiled to Siberia, then deserted Russia for Switzerland) made his way through Germany and back to Russia to promote his Marxist ideologies in an effort to reform the Russian government and establish a Socialist nation. 

Sidenote: Lenin and the rest of his Bolshevik followers were staunch supporters of Marxist ideology, which is the core component of this blog post. The book Das Kapital by Karl Marx represents one of the most dangerous ideas in human history. Karl Marx presents his theory on "Dialectical Materialism," which is based partly on Charles Darwin's work: "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." What Dialectical Materialism represents is all human beings are nothing more than materialized constructs of matter that have evolved over the course of millions of years. Like animals, we really weren't created by any supernatural being(s), nor should we be constrained within the "limitations" of morality (limitations meaning one should have to experience no guilt for causing the death and suffering of millions of people; the ends always justify the means). Every step in the development of our physical and intellectual abilities are a direct result of conflict with other consructs of matter that has been ongoing since the beginning of time. Some matter survives onward and others go extinct; such is the way of life. Dialectical Materialism also puts forth the belief that humans have no souls, which can neither be saved or ascended into any form of afterlife. This is intended to discredit any ideas about religion and morality in an attempt to qualify the belief in Atheism. Marx then takes this concept and applies it to society. Marx believes that some groups of people with old ideas should go extinct while people with new, progressive ideas should survive. Marx believes it is perfectly natural (Darwinistic) for the proletariat to rise against the bourgeois; to eradicate capitalism and set up a system of socialism governed entirely by the working class of that society. He also believes it is perfectly natural (Darwinistic) for all opponents of this ideology to be killed or made to suffer in an effort to preserve the social movement; such is the way of progress only achievable through conflict. Marx also believes that proletariat uprisings and the establishment of communism can only come from a slow indoctrination of the masses through education, propaganda, and hardship within a well-industrialized nation. This would mean infiltrating school systems with Marxist ideology, taking control of a nation's mass media, and allowing the contagiousness of these ideas to spread during difficult economic times (Despite the Marxist theories that denounce religion, Marxism, like a religion, is not backed by science and its strength depends entirely on the number of its faithful followers). Ideologically speaking, Communism is supposed to be a perfect system where there is no official government and everybody owns everything. In reality, however, Communism is more along the lines of turning an entire nation into one, great big ant colony with the centralized government acting as the ant colony queen. Everybody lives and sacrifices solely for the greater needs of the nation. Individualism and ownership is completely nullified and replaced with the morality of altruism (Sacrificing oneself for the good of others). Altruism, by its own definition and ideology, seems noble. In Communist reality, however, it means sacrificing one's life so that other members of a famished society can cannibalize your corpse (Yes, that's what I said. I'll touch more on that in Part 3). Lenin and his Bolshevik supporters understood the works of Karl Marx well and did exactly as Marx's theories suggested. During this critical moment in Russian history, the divided nation of inhabitants, the hopelessness of the working class, the economic disaster, the ongoing war, and the weak Provisional Government sewed the perfect environment for spreading Marxist ideals. The great social experiment of Marxism in Russia was about to begin.

          Lenin made his way into Petrograd where he quickly began his work riling the masses of Russia and gaining a growing support of the Russian proletariat. He damned the Provisional Government as it was represented primarily by upper class members of the bourgeoise and would only oppress the people as if they were under Czar rule. The people ate it up. He made promises to the people, promised them land, promised them ownership, promised to end the war with Germany, and justified the decision to abandon Russia's allies. It is believed that Lenin's speeches and public ignition caused mass riots agaist the Provisional Government forces in Petrograd. These were known as "The July Days" where people rioted in anti-war protests and died in the streets at the hands of Provisional militants. Kerensky and the rest of the Provisional officials branded Lenin a German sympathizer and ordered for his arrest. Lenin escaped across the border to Finland where he continued to command his Bolshevik movements. Lenin and his primary followers, Stalin and Trotsky, organized efforts for a coup d'etat (sudden, illegal deposition of government), which would later happen in November. Kerensky received reports from his followers regarding this coup, but chose to take no action against it. Kerensky was preoccupied trying to achieve unity between the irreconcilable left and right winged committees along with helping Russian allies with the war effort. In the meantime, the war continued, the economy continued to decline, and the people grew exhausted; thick with hopelessness. The Bolshevik movement rapidly gained more support under these conditions. Revolutionary propaganda was published in the newspapers, which were edited exlusively by Stalin, and were widely read throughout the Russian population. On the morning of November 7, 1917 the Bolshevik's staged a coup d'etat that overthrew the Provisional Government. Kerensky fled Russia and escaped to England where he remained in exile. Eventually Kerensky moved to New York City where he later died. The Russian State was now at the hands of Lenin and his Bolshevik Lieutenants: Stalin and Trotsky. The Russian people finally got the change they've been fighting for. If they only knew...

- JSR

Part III: The Life of the Soviets, the Spread of Communism, & Closing Arguments

Reference

Halliday, E. M., & Black, C. E. (1967). Russia in Revolution. American Heritage Publishing Co.

A Lesson from History! The Origin of Leftist Ideology and its Effects on Humanity: Part 1

          What you see above is a political cartoon from Russia, late 1800s, which depicts a tired and oppressed Russian people burdened with carrying the three most oppressive forces in Russia's pre-revolutionary history: The Czar, the Church, and the whip-bearing Capitalist. I recently found this upon reading a book called "Russia in Revolution." I quickly realized just how much the mindset of the Russian people during that time was not a whole lot different than the mindset of Americans in today's politics. The Russian Revolution is probably the most significant event to happen in human history. The fall of the Russian Czar, the rise of the Bolshevik Regime, and the birth of Communism have sparked a series of events that continues to echo across the globe today. The purpose of the next few posts are to provide my readers a historical review of this critical moment in world history; to understand just how much of a disaster the birth of Communism really was for human civilization and why it bears so much significance in today's political climate.

Part I: The Fall of the Czars

           The Russian Revolution was not a singular event. Across the span of several Russian Monarchs, the people of Russia had sporadic uprisings against the autocratic regimes for several decades before the Bolsheviks finally took the country over in 1917. Under the Czar autocracy, the Russian State owned and controlled everything within its borders: The people, the farms, the industry, the press, the universities, everything. As far back as 1825, Nicholas I was among the first of the Czars to meet with revolutionary adversity.

          Nicholas I stamped out his initial resistance (known as the Decembrists) with executions and exile; the typical reaction of a threatened Monarch. Nicholas I tolerated no political movements that granted the Russian people any hope for autocratic reform; as did every Czar preceding him. The Decembrists longed for a Constitutional government and a freer nation for the Russian people, but doing so would remove too much power from the Czar; something a Monarch is often unwilling to compromise. The ownership and oppression of the Russian people continued and eventually Alexander II (son of Nicholas I) rose to power in 1855.

           Alexander II made a feeble attempt to appease the masses of Russia (most of which were peasants) by liberating them from serfdom, thereby allowing peasants autonomous control over their own lands. It wasn't enough. The amount of land alotted to each peasant family was insufficient for an entire family to survive comfortably. Alexander II then allowed the people to establish the zemstvos; county councils whose members were elected by the people. The people were still unsatisfied. The zemstvos allowed further reforms which brought about improvements to local schools, hospitals, and roads. More schools, roads, and hospitals were built. Agricultural infrastructure improved and trial by juries were established. The people were still unsatisfied. Alexander II came to realize his peoples' lack of gratitude and regretted his decision to allow so many reforms in the first place; an attitude that eventually carried over to his heir, Alexander III. Later, a new revolutionary group started up; they were known as the Narodniks (The Populists). The goal of the Narodniks was to remove the Czar from power and turn Russia to Socialism. They first operated as missionaries, spreading revolutionary ideas to the people of Russia, but were often met with suspicion by the general public. They organized a secret group called The People's Will. Operations later evolved to planning acts of terror to intimidate the Czar regime. Trains were dynamited, officials were assassinated, and government buildings were bombed. In 1881, The People's Will succeeded in assassinating Alexander II and two of his Cossack guards (Russian Mounties) by bombing his coach as it passed through Petrograd (A city later called St. Petersburg). Members of The People's Will were eventually tracked down and executed.

Sidenote: The People's Will operations in late 1800s, Russia were quite comparable to the Weather Underground Organization (WUO) that begin in America, 1969. The WUO's violent efforts aimed to overthrow the U.S. Government and establish a classless society (Communism). Their efforts continued through the mid-1970s with a series of several monument and government building bombings, robberies and jailbreaks. Their messages were conveyed in a piece of  literature called Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism (a title inspired by a quote from Mao Zedong), which was met with high praises by the Liberal media at the time. Key leaders of the WUO (who were highly inspired by Marxist-Leninist ideals) were eventually caught and served prison sentences. Bill Ayers, one of the primary leaders of the WUO, is now an education professor in Chicago's University of Illinois and has counseled with President Obama before his election to discuss education reform among other things. Hmmm.

          Alexander III (son of Alexander II) rose to power immediately after his father's death. Alexander III was very stern, temperamental, and merciless to those who stood in his way. He spent the next 13 years repressing the efforts of revolutionaries and undoing some of the reformations granted by his father. Sidenote: A revolutionary named Alexander Ulyanov was executed for the assassination attempt of Alexander III in 1887. Ulyanov's 17 year old brother, Vladimir Ilyich (alias: Lenin) would later become a key player in Russian history. During this time, however, Russia's industrial development and locomotive infrastructure improved dramatically. In 1894 Alexander III died from a bronchial infection. His son, Nicholas II took the throne two years later.

          Nicholas II, the last of the Russian Czars, was nothing like his father. He was polite, quiet, and a bit unsure of himself as he would easily change his opinions on particular matters whenever met with confrontation. He disliked arguments and preferred to keep things peaceful. Nicholas II understood his personality was not fit for an autocratic ruler where a strong will and commanding presence is paramount. At a young age, Nicholas II did not want to be a ruler, particularly after witnessing his grandfather's (Alexander III) fate. It's especially unfortunate his personality rose to power during some of the most difficult and volatile times in Russian history. Nicholas II definitely had his work cut out for him. The first day of his rule began in tragedy for the Russian people. Traditionally, during a coronation (crowning) ceremony, the royal family offers gifts to the peasants who attend. Unfortunately, during the coronation of Nicholas II, a rumor spread there weren't enough gifts for all the peasants who were present. It resulted in a stampede that killed about two-thousand people and the rule of Nicholas II was branded as an omen by the Russian people because of this. To top this all off, the start of World War I, Russia's war with Germany and Japan, and the rapid rise of new revolutionary groups were enough to keep Nicholas II busy. While Nicholas II preferred to drop his responsibilities and spend more time with his wife and five kids, he was forced to spend the bulk of his waking moments exiling individuals with revolutionary ideas and organizing the war efforts against Germany and Japan. Over time, he grew even more distant from the Russian people as he gradually focused more of his time dealing with the Russian military, while leaving civil matters at the hands of his wife, Alexandra (grand-daughter of Queen Victoria of England). The biggest mistake made by Nicholas II was his unfettered focus on providing enough resources for the war effort while depriving the working citizens of Russia enough resources to live comfortably. The Russians grew weary from the losses of war and the rationing of food. The March Revolution in 1917 rapidly erupted. During this time, the Russian press issued newspapers announcing "Change!" (sound familiar?) as the events of the revolution began to unfold. Nicholas II, his wife, and his five children were exiled to Tobolsk, Siberia. In April 1918, Nicholas II and the rest of the Romanov family were moved to the Urals of Ekaterinburg. They were later massacred on July 17 by Bolshevik militants.

           There were many relevant events and political movements that took place before Nicholas II's removal and many political movements that took place before the Bolsheviks' rise to power. 1917 was quite a busy year for the Russians. The most succinct way I can illustrate the succession of these events would be: The March Revolution > Removal of Nicholas II > Kerensky vs. Lenin > Rise of the Bolsheviks > Communism > Stalin. I'll delve further into the events of Russia, 1917 in the next few posts. Thank you for reading...and God Bless!

- JSR

 Click here for Part II: The March Revolution, The Dumas, and Lenin's Rise to Power

Reference

 Halliday, E. M., & Black, C. E. (1967). Russia in Revolution. American Heritage Publishing Co.

        

          

         

Culture Crisis! The Extinction of Middle-Class Values and the Financial Corruption of America

          An important note I would like to make to my readers: This article will contain highly controversial information that will likely offend some of you. While it is not my intention to offend or place blame on any particular group of people, it is solely a personal effort of mine to inform my readers about what is truly wrong with America today and why it is something we simply cannot afford to ignore any longer. This is an issue that effects everyone. It is a problem that every American, Republicans and Democrats alike, have allowed to continue for too long. I'll begin with a simple observation I made upon viewing both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

          The photo above was taken during the Democratic National Convention, which spoke primarily about preserving the quality of life for middle-class workers. While watching some of the DNC speakers, I had a brief moment of deja-vu. Less than a week prior, I was hearing a lot of the same rhetoric from Tampa. The word "middle-class" seems to be a popular buzzword for both political parties. It makes sense considering the historical implication of what it means to be "middle class." It sounds good. It sounds noble. The "middle-class" have always been perceived as the "hard-working," the "self-reliant," and the "industrious;" the embodiment of the American Dream. Speaking out in favor of the middle-class is the ultimate form of propaganda in this upcoming election. I've heard many Democrats at the DNC say that Republicans don't care about the middle-class because of all the ways they want to cut government spending and entitlement programs like Medicare, Unemployment, Disability, and Social Security. It is this statement that is the central focus of this article and is the very essence of what is really wrong with America today. How would any real, industrious, hard-working, and self-reliant middle-class American feel about this statement? How would George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or John Adams feel about this statement? This is an issue that transcends American politics. It is not about unemployment. It's not about entitlements. It's not about the healthcare crisis. It's not about the national debt. It's not about taxes. It's not about inflation, wages, special interests, or retirement, either. These are all just symptoms of the real illness that has affected a vast majority of the American people.

          So what is this illness that I speak of? Complete and utter erosion of middle-class American values; the values that involve self-reliance, self-restraint, and industriousness; an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. What used to be a self-reliant, rugged, and hard-working nation has now become a nation of self-interests, entitlements, laziness, and taking away more than what is contributed. It is a mentality that stretches across all socio-economic statuses; rich, poor, and middle-class alike. Now, I understand this is a pretty bold statement to make, especially since the bulk of my readers likely come from middle-class households, but consider the next few things I'm about to tell you and decide for yourself.

• Disability Entitlements: In the 1960s, less than 1% of the US workforce received disability benefits from the U.S. Government. Let's also consider this: Most of the truly backbreaking work of the 1960s has since been replaced by automated technology, like computers and machinery; not to mention successful treatments of labor-related injuries brought about by 50 years of medical advancement. With that said, the US should have seen a drop in disability claims (as a percentage) over the last 50 years. So, why is it that as of 2012, 5% of the total American workforce is currently collecting disability benefits and not working? I'm sure there's all kinds of speculation in the realm of political correctness regarding this issue, but allow me to explain this to you, bluntly: As of right now, millions of Americans are defrauding SSDI benefits! Why work when you can easily claim a labor-related injury, qualify for disability, and receive a monthly check from the government for rest of your life? Consider this: A man claims disability at the age of 45 and receives a monthly SSDI check of $1,100. This means by the retirement age of 65, he will have milked a total of $264,000 from the US taxpayers, but wait! It doesn't stop there. From the age of 65, his disability will end and he will qualify for Social Security benefits at the same amount until he dies at the average, male life expectancy of 79 years. That's another $184,000, but wait! I'm still not done. After his passing, his wife will now be entitled to her husband's social security benefits until her life expectancy of 81 years. Assuming the wife is the same age as her husband, she will receive a total of $26,400. This makes a grand total of $474,400 to one household courtesy of the American taxpayers and that's not including the Social Security benefits the wife would have also received in her name alone. Now, this may not seem like that much money in the grand scheme of things, especially not over the course of 36yrs, but when millions of people throughout the country decide to jump on this bandwagon, it becomes an unsustainable system; a ponzi scheme. It is a complete and utter deviation from the country our Founding Fathers intended for us. Now, I understand disability benefits may be a sensitive topic for some people and I'm aware that some people truly and honestly depend on SSDI. However, we cannot ignore the fact that millions of Americans are taking advantage of an entitlement system they don't deserve. This blatant, nationwide use of entitlement fraud has cost the American taxpayers approximately $132 billion dollars in the year 2011, which is twice that of the SSDI benefits paid in the year 2000, and is expected to double again within the next 10 years. It's just another of the many different financial leaks that has drained our economy and our sustainability within the last 40 years.With that said...moving on.

• Unemployment: Look, I understand the economy sucks and the prevalence of job opportunities are scarce, but there is no doubt in my mind that unemployment entitlements are being abused rampantly throughout the country. Before I get into the nitty-gritty details, let me tell you a personal story about my experience with people on unemployment. While working as a bank teller, I would often hear customers' "unemployment horror stories" about how difficult it was to find work. They all seemed to really hate the raw deal of joblessness that life has handed them. For the longest time I felt sorry for them and prayed their luck would change sooner rather than later. Well, as it later turned out, Obama extended the length of disability benefits in both 2011 and in 2012, allowing all current and new unemployment recipients a total of two full years to find employment. Suddenly, a lot of these poor, unemployed customers seemed to be in much brighter spirits than they ever appeared before. For most of them, their unemployment was extended at least another year, which means they get to sit on their asses for the next 364 days without any worry of seeking employment. Some of these customers weren't so happy, however. Some of them were getting dangerously close to their unemployment expiration date and were able to find a job just before Obama's extension was enacted. It took every ounce of my own willpower to hold my composure upon hearing their testimony about this. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Upon further reflection, however, I realized it does make sense. After all, why look for a new job when you can live comfortably on unemployment for two years until your benefits run out? So what happens in the next two years when these benefits finally expire? Unemployment recipients will still complain about the job situation, the economy, and (if Obama wins the election) unemployment benefits will get extended AGAIN! The whole system is just a huge incentive to keep people from seeking work and it's all being paid for at the taxpayers expense. It has become another highly abused and unsustainable system; another of the many drains on the American taxpayers. Most unemployment checks that I have cashed for bank customers totaled around $660 bi-weekly. This means most people on unemployment are receiving about $1,320 a month just to fill out a bi-weekly EDD form that simply states "Yes, I looked for a job. No I didn't find one." According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of unemployment recipients in America today totals to about 12.6 millon people. This means total annual expense in unemployment benefits amounts to approximately $200 billion dollars a year, nationwide. Several states including: California, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania have taken billions from the federal government to make up the difference. Again, I realize this massive abuse of entitlement doesn't include every unemployment beneficiary in the country, but I'd wager everyone reading this knows at least one person in their life who is abusing the unemployment entitlement system today. It is not unusual in today's times.

• Retirement: I wouldn't consider retirement as an undeserved entitlement under normal circumstances, but there are several cases throughout the country where it certainly is. This is especially true for public sector workers, which account for about 17% of the total United States workforce. Think about this: A public sector worker begins working for the city at age 25 until the age of 55. Throughout the worker's 30 year career, he receives an annual COLA (cost of living allowance), an annual raise, better promotional opportunities, better job security, exceptional medical, dental, vision, and life insurance packages, and accumulating vacation and sick time that goes uncapped throughout the duration of his 30 year career. As a civil servant, it is not unusual to retire after 30 years with a six-figure salary, which means annual retirement pensions would equate to at least $90k, but wait! That's just the tip of the iceberg. On top of receiving this pension, the retiree is also granted the same medical, dental, vision, and life insurance package benefits along with a final payout of all accumulated and unused vacation and sick time. Additionally, most public sector retirees will retire between the ages of 55 and 65 and their lifespans could continue on for up to another 30 years. This means they'll be receiving their retirement benefits for roughly the same duration of time as the life-span of their career. In 30 years, a public sector retiree walking out with a $100k annual salary will receive roughly $2 million-700k in annual retirement pensions and that's not including the hundreds of thousands of dollars in unused sick/vacation pay or the money paid by insurance benefits. So, how can local communities, cities, and municipalities afford to pay for this? They can't. The amount of money collected in taxes from private sector workers is not enough to sustain such a heavily imbalanced system. Cities around the country are going bankrupt because of this, threatening the cushy retirement packages and pensions of retired public sector workers everywhere. So, how do the retirees respond to this? They sue the cities of their employment, demand their entitlements, rage about it in the local newspaper, and expect the outside world to feel sympathy for their cause. It's another of the many entitlement complexes that has completely gone awry in this country. What's really unfortunate about all this is how little the public sector retirees understand regarding the risky and difficult retirement options of private sector workers, most of which primarily invested their retirement money in the form of 401k's. After 2008, 401k portfolios were atrocious and private sector workers across the country began to worry they may not get to retire at all. On top of that, most private sector retirees are not granted an annual pension from their company of retirement, nor are they granted medical, dental, vision, or life insurance benefits. The one thing that private sector workers will be entitled to, however, is Social Security and Medicare, but those are two additional entitlement systems that have contributed heavily to deficit spending throughout the last 40 years. Certainly those won't be available forever, either. When you look at the reality of this whole situation, it almost appears like public sector retirees are stomping their feet like spoiled children at age 55 while private sector retirees walk away from their careers at age 65 with a lot more uncertainty about how they will afford retirement. It's totally corrupt and completely backwards.

• Welfare: The US spends approximately 6% of its annual budget on direct welfare programs such as: Income Security, Food and Nutrition, Housing Assistance, and 'Other Income Security' (whatever that means). While 6% may not seem like a whole lot of money required, think of it this way... Let's imagine  your total net income is $50k a year; a fairly average salary for many middle-class Americans. 6% of that annual salary equates to exactly $3,000. When broken down over the course of 12 months, this equates to $250 a month. Now ask yourself this...How many monthly bills could you pay in one month with $250? I could probably pay at least 3 of my monthly bills with that. I'd say that's a pretty significant chunk of change for that reason. While the concept of welfare was initially intended to help out families during difficult times, it has since become a primary dependence and way of life for many low-income Americans. As dependence on the Government's anti-poverty programs persists, the drive for the recipients to become self-sufficient eventually die away; leaving behind a "downtrodden population of societal victims." They pass off all sense of personal responsibility and develop an entitlement complex where they believe their livelihoods are "justly" burdened by the working taxpayers of the society that surrounds them. What welfare programs are actually doing is they are breeding entire populations of this entitlement complex whose entire perspective on life contradicts everything our Founding Fathers intended for us to have. Adversely, welfare and other, similar social programs are directly responsible for the growing level of government control over the lives of its citizens. The more dependent people become on Government, the more power the Government has. Welfare is, in every way, contradictory to the founding principles of this nation.

• Deficit Spending: This is the mother lode of everything that is wrong with America today and is by far the scariest thing happening in today's economic times. For the past 50 years, deficit spending has been the most significant contributor to America's upcoming economic downfall and we cannot ignore the reality of this very serious issue any longer. Right now, the national debt has risen to just over 16 trillion dollars. That's one thousand billion dollars times sixteen. The national debt is so high that America is well past the point of no return. Every year, the U.S. owes $340 billion in compounding interest alone, which is only paid for by accumulating even more debt. Even if all the taxpayers in the country were taxed 100% of their total income for an entire year, and the government shut down every avenue of spending for that year, the debt's principle would still stand and interest on that debt would continue to compound. What we are seeing today in America is not much different than what history has seen from other great nations, kingdoms, and empires throughout the history of human civilization. For example: The Roman Empire in 284AD, the early 13th Century Byzantine Empire, late 13th Century Wales, The French Revolution in 1789, late 16th Century Spain, 19th Century Ottoman Empire, The Russian Revolution in 1918, and Germany 1938. The three things all these major economic collapses have in common: War, debt, and hyper-inflation. As is with the United States, our debt continues to inflate as a knee-jerk reaction to stop the deflation that would have occurred as a result of the housing market crash in 2008. The United States is operating solely on free money, which is money the US Fed is, metaphorically, pulling out of thin air, printed in currency by the US Mint, and selling that debt to countries like China and Japan. Think of it like this: 43 cents of every dollar is borrowed money, accumulating interest and will need to be paid back. Currently, the majority of this debt remains in stasis by banks, but if that money is released into the US economy (and it eventually will), the US will experience hyper-inflation beyond anything that has ever been seen in the history of the world. Germany WWI, for example: Germany experienced hyper-inflation so extreme that it would have cost 80 billion German Marks just to purchase a single egg. The German Marks currency was deemed worthless and the transfer of wealth moved over to basic commodities. If history is any indication of what is truly possible, given these circumstances, the US currency will become practically worthless. Food will rapidly fly off the shelves, civil war will erupt, people will starve, and all the wealth will transfer back over to the value of commodity goods (which is usually gold). Although I'm not trying to cause mass-panic with these statements, I'm simply acknowledging an economic life-cycle and its consistency throughout human history. So, why haven't we learned from human history and made efforts to stop this coming financial apocalypse? The truth is: We have tried. What we didn't realize, however, is the longer we stave off total financial meltdown, the worse the inevitible will be when it finally happens. I'd wager most Americans don't realize just how serious this ballooning debt really means for the future of America.

          So, why are all these things happening and why won't it stop? I can sum that answer up using two, very simple words: Human Nature. It is completely natural for humans to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Instead of abiding by the values set in place by our Founding Fathers, we have eventually decided, as a nation, it is easier to take more and give less. We have decided to work the political system in a way that benefits us while expensing others. We are never satisfied with what we have and we continue to demand more. We have decided that it's easier to delve further in debt than it would be to pay it down or default. We have decided it's easier to let our future generations pay the price of irresponsibility for us. It is the ultimate selfishness, moral extinction, and financial corruption in the history of this country. When all is said and done, America will survive, but it will never be what it once was. Maybe by then we can rebuild the country with the grassroots values we have long forgotten since 1776.

Thank you for reading...and God Bless.

- JSR