Leftists are Elitists in Denial

Here is the central lie of today’s leftism. The highest leftist tenet is that people are inherently unequal. The next is that equality must be enforced in order to sustain a proper society. The lie comes when one considers the way equality must be enforced. The only way to enforce equality is to have a superior, elite class of people as leaders, to determine what equality is, and to ensure it sustains itself.

The lie reveals itself when one asks a leftist what they truly believe of the “common” people, whom they distrust and disdain, but believe they love. They hold the same condescending love toward the lower classes as an owner for their dog. Their attitude toward the group of humanity they consider less intelligent than themselves, is repulsive.

A leftist proclaims that superiority should never exist, but in brilliant Orwellian fashion, once they are sure everyone else believes superiority is forbidden, take the mantle of leadership upon themselves, a one-eyed man among the blind, and use the lower classes’ belief in self-gain ironically against them. Once everyone else believes in equality, the narcissistic leftist believes their own natural superiority will rise above the sea of commonality to lead their homogeneous flock toward grazing.

read the complete article on the ACL JNU page : https://acljnu.wordpress.com/elitist-leftists

quoting adolf hitler

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Karl Marx: Radical Antisemitism

Marx argues in his essay, On the Jewish Question, originally published in 1844 that, “In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” Larry Ray explains, “Marx’s position is essentially an assimilationist one in which there is no room within emancipated humanity for Jews as a separate ethnic or cultural identity.” Dennis Fischman puts it, “Jews, Marx seems to be saying, can only become free when, as Jews, they no longer exist.”

The British journalist and historian Paul Johnson has argued that “The second part of Marx’s essay is almost a classic anti-Semitic tract, based upon a fantasied Jewish archetype and a conspiracy to corrupt the world.” The American historian, Gertrude Himmelfarb argued that it cannot be denied that in his essay On the Jewish Question, Marx expressed views that “were part of the classic repertoire of anti-Semitism.”

(read the complete article at: Marx & Friends in their own words> http://marxwords.blogspot.com/ )

Fascism is Leftist

Stalin as a National Socialist

Hitler’s strategy for popularity was not lost on Stalin. Quite soon after Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin reopened the Russian Orthodox churches and restored the old ranks and orders of the Russian Imperial army to the Red Army so that it became simply the Russian Army and stressed nationalist themes (e.g. defence of “Mother Russia”) in his internal propaganda. As one result of this, to this day Russians refer to the Second World War as “the great patriotic war”. Stalin may have started out as an international socialist but he ended up a national socialist. So Hitler was a Rightist only in the sense that Stalin was. If Stalin was Right-wing, however, black might as well be white.

 

Ho Chi Minh as a National Socialist

Stalin showed that National Socialism could be used effectively against another National Socialist but it took Ho Chi Minh’s regime and its Southern extension to demonstrate that National Socialism could even defeat the Great Republic (the United States). That Ho Chi Minh was a socialist is hardly now disputable and it is also clear that he had Vietnamese nationalism working for him in his fight against the American interventionists. Their foreignness made this easy to do. Note that the Viet Cong were formally known as the National Liberation Front. Their primary ostensible appeal was in fact national, though their socialism was of course never seriously in doubt. So the nationalism of Ho Chi Minh’s regime gave it widespread support or at least co-operation in the South as well as in the North. Ho thus stole the emotional clothes of the conservatives as effectively as Hitler did and the magic mix of nationalism and socialism was once again shown to be capable of generating enormous military effectiveness against apparently forbidding odds. So the simple explanation that works to explain Hitler’s amazing challenge to the world also works to explain the equally amazing defeat of the world’s mightiest military power by an relatively insignificant Third World nation. A National Socialist regime has such a strong emotional appeal that it galvanizes its subject population to Herculean efforts in a way that few other (if any) regimes can. It sounds about as crazy as you get to claim that it was Nazism that defeated the U.S. in Vietnam but this once again shows how Nazism has been misunderstood and consequently underrated.

Distinguishing Hitler from Stalin

Hitler was, however, more Rightist than Stalin in the sense that, as a popular leader, he did not need to resort to extreme forms of oppressive control over his people (Unger, 1965). German primary and secondary industry did not need to be nationalized because they largely did Hitler’s bidding willingly. State control was indeed exercised over German industry but it was done without formally altering its ownership and without substantially alienating or killing its professional managers.

The contempt that Hitler had for Stalin and for “Bolshevism” generally should also not mislead us in assessing the similarity between Nazism and Communism. Leftist sects are very prone to rivalry, dissension, schism and hatred of one-another. One has only to think of the Bolsheviks versus the Mensheviks, Stalin versus Trotsky, China versus the Soviet Union, China “teaching Vietnam a lesson”, the Vietnamese suppression of the Khmer Rouge etc. Similarity does not preclude rivalry and in the end it was mainly competition for power that set Hitler and Stalin on a collision course.

Under Stalin’s wartime innovations, the difference between Nazism and Communism became largely a difference of emphasis. Both Nazism and Communism were nationalistic and socialist but with Communism, socialism was the ideological focus and justification for State power whereas with Nazism, nationalism was the ideological focus and justification for State power.

(read the complete article at: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html )

the eleventh april movie screening was a suceess. even in its very attempt (and success) of screening anti-communist movies for the first time in the campus, it was a direct hit at the very mother ideology of the ruling class (the Communists).

we hope our innitiate finds voice in all the corners of the campus.

[p.s dsu and aisa are again playing ‘we-are-more-red-than-you’ game with each other. so much for their revolution.]

On the eve of the International Women’s Day, Aisa and other communist party took out a pamphlet which talked about the influence and importance of Communism in the social upliftment of women in the socieity. They claim how the communists have raised against the imperial state to demand the rightful place for working women. But they somehow forgot to mention the torture and exploitation that these same women face at the hands of the Maoists, Naxalites and the red rebels. They are blind towards the rapes and murders that these so called upholded of justice and rights have made a common occurance under the Communist terrrorism.

The following is an extract from “The Maoist Menace: Terrorism in India”
By Prof. R N. Mishra and Dr. Anjana Maitra (for the full report go to https://acljnu.wordpress.com/the-maoist-menace/)

Dipti, a young woman terrorist, who surrendered herself voluntarily to the police on November 25, 2007 at Sambalpur hails from a remote place near Naktideol. She was lured to the cadre on the promise of a job. She was trained by the Maoists and was involved in a number of violent incidents including burning of a truck. She has made it clear in her statement that women in the cadre are not only tortured by the Maoists but they are also sexually exploited.

Rasmita Nayak, another woman Maoist, has a similar story to tell. A man and a woman persuaded her to join the cadre on the promise of giving her money. She was given training in the camps to use rifle and was engaged in their operations later. She also in her statement to the police admitted the charges of torture and sexual exploitation.

Solostica who is 24 years old also voluntarily surrendered herself to the police. She joined in the cadre in 2005 and after completion of training in various camps assumed the command of a women’s’ group. She was also assured of a job and regular payment of monthly salary in return of her services to the poor and needy, fight for removing injustice from the society and efforts for bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. In her statement to the police, she narrated the various forms of torture meted out to the women cadres. According to her the women Maoists are required to dance and sing in their parties to entertain the men folk. They were also sexually exploited in their parties in the forest. Solostica was highly disillusioned at sight of the carnage of poor and innocent people and extortion of heavy amount of cash which was alleged to have been appropriated by two leaders of their gang. The lavish life style of the leaders was a sore point for all.

so when these campus communists take the moral highground of abolisher of patriarchy, it is indeed amusing.you may also access the full report at the following external link :

The Maoist Menace: Terrorism in India

an article by Alvaro Vargas Llosa named

The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand

is accessable at the following page:

https://acljnu.wordpress.com/the-killing-machine
thank you.

LETS STRIKE OUT COMMUNISM

In the first general meeting of ACL it was decided to form a core team to lead and guide the future actions of ACL. The team consists of different voices from different perspectives thereby not being pro any particular ideology. Our motive is to create awareness against the Communist hypocrisy and fight its hegemony. We invite support from all non-communuist ideologies to help us stike out communism.

Our core team consists of Amit Srivastava, Amit Kumar Mishra, Syed Zaigham Abbas, Farbod Vasighi and Sumanto Majumder.

It is really interesting to note how people (read Commies) have reacted to our attempt to raise a voice against the Communist hegemony in JNU. When the first poster came up annoucing the formation of the League, they were dumbfound but they tried to brush it aside as a joke.

But then ACL isn’t about to vanish in the thin air. (unfortunately for the Commies.)

Our next poster highlighted the dangers of the practised Socialism. And this time our posters were torn down. The notable difference was that different stooges of Communism, tried to hide their own leaders. Some places they cut out Stalin’s picture while other place they removed Mao’s photo.

The hypocrisy of Communists never stops to amuse us.

The Communist pretend to be intellectuals. And in keeping with their “history” of democratic dialogue, one of our Commie friend sent us an email arguing why our forum is not doing justice to the GLORIOUS Communism. We don’t really think there is much to reply to his tirade.

Following is the quoted email (we have not editted any part of it, brain-washing is not our game ) :

Dear Frends.

Its very shameful matter for me and so many othere friends to get such kinds of rubbish matter about socialism. We are studying at academic centre and we have certain degree of discipline. If you are not agree with socialism or if you dislike these leaders, you have no right to blame them. Can you explain who kill the innocent people ? Narnedra Sing Modi, George Bush or Comrade MAo. who kill the innocent people? did you count the people who died in gulf-iraq-afgan-iran-somaliya-eas asia etc……. and who killed them? who killed the people in 1992 riots. Who killed the people in Vietnaam. and who are killing the people in the name of neo-liberlisation and market economy???? thousands of people are dying just because they have no access to food, is not it created by your “lovely” capitalism?????

So I request you to make this group as highly academic platform not the space for geopardy.

thanks

Gokarn

=[[ che chic ]]=

Jay Nordlinger explains the man behind the fashion legend:

The fog of time and the strength of anti-anti-Communism have obscured the real Che. Who was he? He was an Argentinian revolutionary who served as Castro’s primary thug. He was especially infamous for presiding over summary executions at La Cabaña, the fortress that was his abattoir. He liked to administer the coup de grâce, the bullet to the back of the neck. And he loved to parade people past El Paredón, the reddened wall against which so many innocents were killed. Furthermore, he established the labor-camp system in which countless citizens — dissidents, democrats, artists, homosexuals — would suffer and die. This is the Cuban gulag. A Cuban-American writer, Humberto Fontova, described Guevara as “a combination of Beria and Himmler.” Anthony Daniels once quipped, “The difference between [Guevara] and Pol Pot was that [the former] never studied in Paris.”

Paul Berman likewise undresses the myth:

The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution’s first firing squads. He founded Cuba’s “labor camp” system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che’s imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for “two, three, many Vietnams,” he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: “Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …”— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.

(source : www.advicegoddess.com/…/2005/03/che-chic.html )