RSS Feed
Loading ...
Newsbusters’ Michael Chapman sums this up best:
The liberal media love to talk about “victims,” particularly victims of alleged economic or social oppression, such as illegal immigrants, children without enough Head Start funding, the homeless, the transgendered, detainees at Gitmo, and so on. But when it comes to victims of left-wing ideology–i.e., Communism–the liberal media don’t say too much. And this is evident in the minimal (in my view) coverage given to the dedication of the Memorial to the Victims of Communism in Washington, D.C. on June 12, an event where President Bush spoke and where some of the world’s leading experts on communism’s atrocities–more than 100 million victims–spoke as well.
Marxism-Leninism (communism) dominated the 20th century, sparked the Cold War, and through political terror and government-made famines and communist labor camps killed more than 100 million people. Lenin and Stalin instituted a system that killed at least 25 million people; Mao Tse-Tung and China, 60 million victims; Pol Pot in Cambodia, 2 million victims; North Korea, 2 million victims; Ethiopia, 725,000; Vietnam, 1.8 million. The list goes on.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Maggie’s Notebook, Adam’s Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Planck’s Constant, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
June 13, 2007 - 12:51 PM on June 13th, 2007
All those victims of communism all those who were murdered by JOE STALIN,MAO SI TUNG,POL POT,HO CHI MHIN,FIDEL CASTRO,VLADIMEIR LENIN, and im sure that many of hollywoods most far left wont like it like HANOI JANE,ROBERT REDford,RED TED TURNER,and many of those on those collage boards of brainwashing JOE MCcarthy was right:eek:
June 13, 2007 - 01:14 PM on June 13th, 2007
The Left will never acknowledge that their side of the spectrum has been responsible for more victims: More murdered, more oppression, more destruction, more degeneracy, more of the worst of human nature. All in the name of lofty stated ideals.
It’s an Inconveneient Truth for them.
June 13, 2007 - 03:01 PM on June 13th, 2007
Will all of the 100 million, and more be coming here?
June 13, 2007 - 03:04 PM on June 13th, 2007
No Fred, they’re dead.
June 13, 2007 - 03:06 PM on June 13th, 2007
:lol
h yes I am a victim of something? send money too!…the Dawes poor people fund so I can have the new BMW The 2.5 million dollar home the really great looking wife ( under 25 years old not a guy )..send now make me happy!..I AM A VICTIM OF SOMETHING!:grin::grin::grin::roll:
June 13, 2007 - 03:15 PM on June 13th, 2007
Hey guys!.. its more like 550 million but the families are still living so let’s build new homes for people that would not stand up and say no way to the Red rats..its all about people and people make a world for good or bad and that is what you see here, evil at work…think freedom and think duty against evil Government of evil people in all part’s of this good earth..white people make up 10 percent of the world’s population and have in General a good life the other 90 percent are victims and fools who cannot see! Once more people make a world and make aculture of good or evil, just look at Mexico and Red China.
June 14, 2007 - 07:12 AM on June 14th, 2007
The left is so clueless when it comes to this. Remember that Gypsy girl who couldn’t get her mind around Saddam was killing people just like Hitler killed her relations. It is a huge proof that Liberalism is a mental illness.
June 14, 2007 - 11:17 AM on June 14th, 2007
These deaths are not from ideal Marxism, but rather the leaders who perverted the theory to benefit themselves. One does not blame Christianity for the crusades, but rather attributes the horrible wars to a perversion or misunderstanding of Christianity. Both are exactly the same. Reading Marx does not give any indication of a tendency towards violence. Furthermore, it is the government, not the economic system that killed people. One does not blame capitalism for the lives lost during the American Revolution. Your comments reflect a callous misunderstanding of the ideas that you are pondering. Perhaps some of you remember Allende? What did Kissinger say about Allende? “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.” Has he no respect for national sovereignty. Apparently not, the coup worked. I suppose y’all hate Chavez too. How dare he use his nation’s resources for its own people. Those belong to American corporations, not the people who live there! Those resources could be used to help Americans heat their homes. But wait, they do, Chavez sells low cost oil to poor families in New England–something the oil companies refused to do. I suppose you think those poor families should have just worked harder or moved south.
BTW, quoting Hitler automatically disqualifies your argument as hyperbole—if you took the time to do thorough, relevant research you would make your point much more effectively.
June 14, 2007 - 12:46 PM on June 14th, 2007
RPP,
While in theory, communisism is a spiffy ideal, taking a realistic pragmatic approach one soon realizes that the ideal is impossible to acheive.
Regarding your comparisons…
The difference between Christianity and Communism is that Christianity is an effort to strive towards the ideal (Jesus/God) for self betterment while admitting that it is impossible to acheive. Communism requires said human perfection in order to work, not acknowleding that becasuse of this it is impossible to acheive.
Regarding the American Revolution- one can not blame capitalism then, because it simply wasn’t a real factor.
Regarding Chavez- I do not regard him favorably. He doesn’t help his own people in a real sense. He is a state dictator, control and considers the oil his property, and uses ity to placate enough population to keep him in power and thus, very rich. If he was a true communist, he would be happy to perform his function in abject poverty, distributing all of the “oil of the people” to the populus.
Regarding quoting Hitler…Godwin Law, well, rules.
If you wish, we can discuss the dynamics of soveriegnty as I hold a decidedly opposed opinion of the norm regarding what it entails.
June 14, 2007 - 06:22 PM on June 14th, 2007
oh well.
June 15, 2007 - 08:37 AM on June 15th, 2007
TedintheShed,
I would like to first thank you for a well written response, I do not mean to stereotype, but often my comments get a very different response from some conservatives–normally it is much less informed and more attacking me than reading what I said.
As far as the feasibility of communism is concerned, I believe that the problems occur merely in the transition stage. It is quite difficult to give up what you have worked so hard for to everyone around you. I admit that I myself would have trouble doing this.
These states for whom the monument is to be constructed did not reach the state of development. The process of transition caused the deaths, not the stable state. I would argue that Russia never really attained internal stability.
It is much easier to change a government than it is to revamp an economic system. I think that they went about it the wrong way, the Russian Revolution was a bit too ambitious and ended up forcing its ideals upon others. That is where the problems arise. It is the fault of the state, not the economic system that killed those people. The fact that they were striving to be communist has nothing to do with it, being nothing more than mere coincidence. It is not that they were advocating communism that is the problem, it is the fact that they were forcing upon others a system of ideals that they did not want. We find the same behavior back when populations were forced to convert to Christianity. I do not know of very many monuments to the Aztec martyrs who stood up to Cortez.
You are correct about Christianity. But, I would depart from you in saying that many Christian sects do not even question the difficulties in achieving ideality in God’s eyes. I wish that it were about bettering one’s self, but many denominations have grown into a heaven bent frenzy. That is to say they are concerned much more with their own personal salvation rather than the benefit of fellow man. Merely attributing this change in focus to human imperfection would be a gross oversimplification. Marxism does not demand human perfection, but merely human understanding. It would be quite easy to brainwash a generation into thinking communism is the right thing to do. This would be very wrong, but we effectively brainwash our children into thinking capitalism is the ideal system. I agree that capitalism is good in many respects, but I find it hard to form a moral argument for capitalism, and I believe that morality is more important than economy.
Again, you are correct that Chavez is not a true communist. I am not sure that he is striving to be. If he were, he would no doubt live a less lavish life. You do not need to be a communist to be generous, you cannot be a true capitalist, but communism is not necessary. I say that it is impossible to be generous and a capitalist because capitalism is concerned purely with return. If a corporation is charitable, then the shareholders can sue the company for not serving their financial interests (thus all donations have ulterior motives). This is why most of the oil companies would not offer discounted oil to the poor. It is (apparently) better to make money than it is to potentially save lives. Chavez, for all his faults, has benefited his nation as a whole. His project is a work in progress, and is gradually improving the country—much more than can be said about American oil companies.
As far as sovereignty, I depart very quickly from neo-conservative ideals of American interests first. It is important to respect the views of another country no matter how wrong we may think them to be. Sending the CIA to start a coup to take down Allende is not respectful of national sovereignty and is utterly indefensible—especially when talking about a small nation like Chile. Attacking a country for “having weapons of mass destruction,” is also quite uncalled for. Perhaps if they were a threat to the US—perhaps. But that is not the case, and it is not the case for any nation other than China and Russia.
June 17, 2007 - 06:03 PM on June 17th, 2007
Communism is evil by design, not only by implementation. To all people who think that Communism is a good idea spoiled by evil rulers: go and educate yourself more on the topic. Reading the Communist Manifesto could make your hair straight: elimination of family, elimination of the notion of patriotism, elimination of all private property. Even Lenin, Stalin and Mao cannot implement all these. The Communism specter Marx talks about is still hunting our world. Tens of thousands or probably much more people are still dying yearly in the communist countries around the world.