Φίμωση της αντίθετης γνώμης – "καλή βία" - πόλεμος κατά της Εκκλησίας – πόλεμος κατά της οικογένειας – ιδιοκτησίες παραδίδονται σε ξένους – δωρεάν αμβλώσεις – "ελεύθερες" σχέσεις χωρίς κανένα ηθικό φραγμό. Το πνεύμα του Λενινισμού «ζει και βασιλεύει» στις μέρες μας…
Written by Vladimir Moss
On the eve of the election of a new (but probably old) neo-Soviet
leader, it may be useful to remind ourselves of who the first Soviet
leader was, and therefore of that religious system that Russia has still
not freed herself from.
Lenin, a hereditary nobleman of
Russian, German and Jewish origins, was a professional revolutionary who
lived on party funds and income from his mother’s estate. Choosing to
live in the underground[1], he had very little direct knowledge of the
way ordinary people lived, and cared even less. “According to Gorky, it
was this ignorance of everyday work, and the human suffering which it
entailed, which had bred in Lenin a ‘pitiless contempt, worthy of a
nobleman, for the lives of the ordinary people… Life in all its
complexity is unknown to Lenin. He does not know the ordinary people. He
has never lived among them.’”[2]
Lenin hated his own country.
“I spit on Russia”, he said once; and his actions showed his contempt
for Russians of all classes. Nothing is further from the truth than the
idea that Lenin’s revolution was carried out for the sake of Russia or
the Russians: it was carried out, not out of love for anybody or
anything, but simply out of irrational, demonic, universal hatred…
For a revolutionary, Lenin lived a relatively simple, even ascetic
life, and had only affair - with Inessa Armand. But, as Oliver Figes
writes, “asceticism was a common trait of the revolutionaries of Lenin’s
generation. They were all inspired by the self-denying revolutionary
Rakhmetev in Chernyshevsky’s novel What Is To Be Done? By suppressing
his own sentiments, by denying himself the pleasures of life, Lenin
tried to strengthen his resolve and to make himself, like Rakhmetev,
insensitive to the sufferings of others. This, he believed, was the
‘hardness’ required by every successful revolutionary: the ability to
spill blood for political ends. ‘The terrible thing in Lenin,’ Struve
once remarked, ‘was that combination in one person of self-castigation,
which is the essence of all real asceticism, with the castigation of
other people as expressed in abstract social hatred and cold political
cruelty…
“The root of this philistine approach to life was a
burning ambition for power. The Mensheviks joked that it was impossible
to compete with a man, such as Lenin, who thought about revolution
twenty-four hours every day. Lenin was driven by an absolute faith in
his own historical destiny. He did not doubt for a moment, as he had
once put it, that he was the man who was to wield the ‘conductor’s
baton’ in the party. This was the message he brought back to Russia in
April 1917. Those who had known him before the war noticed a dramatic
change in his personality. ‘How he had aged,’ recalled Roman Gul’, who
had met him briefly in 1905. ‘Lenin’s whole appearance had altered. And
not only that. There was none of the old geniality, his friendliness or
comradely humour, in his relations with other people. The new Lenin that
arrived was cynical, secretive and rude, a conspirator “against
everyone and everything”, trusting no one, suspecting everyone, and
determined to launch his drive for power.’…
“Lenin had never
been tolerant of dissent within his party’s ranks. Bukharin complained
that he ‘didn’t give a damn for the opinions of others’. Lunacharsky
claimed that Lenin deliberately ‘surrounded himself with fools’ who
would not dare question him. During Lenin’s struggle for the April
Theses this domineering attitude was magnified to almost megalomaniac
proportions. Krupskaya called it his ‘rage’ – the frenzied state of her
husband when engaged in clashes with his political rivals – and it was
an enraged Lenin whom she had to live with for the next five years.
During these fits Lenin acted like a man possessed by hatred and anger.
His entire body was seized with extreme nervous tension, and he could
neither sleep nor eat. His outward manner became vulgar and coarse. It
was hard to believe that this was a cultivated man. He mocked his
opponents, both inside and outside the party, in crude and violent
language. They were ‘blockheads’, ‘bastards’, ‘dirty scum’,
‘prostitutes’, ‘cunts’, ‘shits’, ‘cretins’, ‘Russian fools’, ‘windbags’,
‘stupid hens’ and ‘silly old maids’. When the rage subsided Lenin would
collapse in a state of exhaustion, listlessness and depression, until
the rage erupted again. This manic alteration of mood was characteristic
of Lenin’s psychological make-up. It continued almost unrelentingly
between 1917 and 1922, and must have contributed to the brain
haemorrhage from which he eventually died.
Λένιν
και Στάλιν, δύο από τους μεγαλύτερους εγκληματίες κατά της
ανθρωπότητος. Εν ονόματι του λαού, εξαφάνισαν εκατομμύρια λαού. Ο Λένιν
γόνος ευκατάστατης οικογένειας με γερμανικές, καλμουκικές (μογγολικό
φύλο) και εβραϊκές ρίζες, χρηματοδοτούμενος ο ίδιος και το μπολσεβικικό
του κόμμα, (τύπωνε 42 εφημερίδες!) από τους Γερμανούς αστούς τους οποίους κατά τα άλλα ήθελε
δήθεν να εξαφανίσει, αφού έλαβε μέρος στις εκλογές του 1916-1917, ερχόμενος
δεύτερος με λίγο παραπάνω από 9 εκατομμύρια ψήφους, το πρώτο κόμμα έλαβε
πάνω από 22 εκατομμύρια, διέλυσε το κοινοβούλιο, επέβαλλε στρατιωτικό
πραξικόπημα με την βοήθεια του στρατού που είχε με το μέρος του, και με
τον εμφύλιο πόλεμο που προκάλεσε επικράτησε στην Ρωσία, ονομάζοντας τη
δικτατορία του σοσιαλιστική επανάσταση! Ο Στάλιν, γεωργιανικής καταγωγής, διαδέχθηκε τον Λένιν,
αν και αυτός δεν το ήθελε, μέσα από εσωτερικές διαμάχες των δελφίνων του
θρόνου επιβλήθηκε στους υπόλοιπους, εξαφάνισε εκατομμύρια λαού, όποιους
δεν θεωρούσε αναγκαίους για την εδραίωση της σταλινικής δικτατορίας
του, σκότωνε χωρίς δισταγμό ακόμη και κοντινούς φίλους του, όπως λέγεται
και τον Κίρωφ, ο οποίος εν μέσω της απόλυτης κυριαρχίας του Στάλιν
βρέθηκε νεκρός το 1934. Το 1936 ξεκίνησε διώξεις εναντίον μελών του
κόμματος του, στρατιωτικών και άλλων κοινωνικών ομάδων. Εκατομμύρια
ανθρώπων, χωρίς κανένα λόγο στάλθηκαν σε στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης
(γκουλάγκ), όπου οι πιο πολλοί πέθαναν από εξαντλητική εργασία και φτωχή
διατροφή. Ο Σολζενίτσιν στο έργο του ''Αρχιπέλαγος Γκουλάγκ'', γράφει
με φρικτές λεπτομέρειες τί έζησαν οι εξόριστοι και φυλακισμένοι εκεί.
Επί κομμουνισμού δολοφονήθηκαν εκατομμύρια ορθόδοξοι χριστιανοί διότι
για τους κομμουνιστές ήταν αντεπαναστατικά στοιχεία, και όποιος μιλούσε
για Θεό έκανε αντισοβιετική προπαγάνδα. Στο τέλος της ζωής του ο Στάλιν
σύμφωνα με τον Σολζενίτσιν σχεδίαζε διώξεις κατά των εβραίων ιατρών. Οι
εμφανιζόμενοι ως αντιρατσιστές αριστεροί πρέπει να γνωρίζουν πως ο
πρώτος που μίλησε για ''φυλετικά σκουπίδια'' ήταν ο φίλος και συνεργάτης
του Μάρξ, ο επιχειρηματίας Φρίντριχ Ένγκελς, ο οποίος τον Ιανουάριο του
1849, έγραψε στην εφημερίδα του ''Εφημερίδα Νέος Ρήνος'', στα γερμανικά
''Νόουα Ράινινς Ζάιτουνκ'', πως όποιες εθνότητες δεν μπορέσουν
ακολουθήσουν την ιστορική εξέλιξη προς την σοσιαλιστική επανάσταση γιατί
θα βρίσκονται δύο στάδια πιο πίσω θα πρέπει να εξοντωθούν ως ''φυλετικά
σκουπίδια''. Δείτε τις αποδείξεις γι' αυτό που γράφουμε στο 14' και
25'' και μετά, πρέπει να δείτε και όλο το βίντεο το οποίο έχει σπάνιο
οπτικό υλικό για την συνεργασία των κομμουνιστών με τους ναζί εναντίον
των εβραίων, τα εγκλήματα των κομμουνιστών εναντίον των Ουκρανών και την
γενοκτονία εναντίον τους με 7 εκατομμύρια νεκρούς σε ενα χειμώνα μόνο
και πολλά άλλα εδώ.
“Much of Lenin’s success in 1917 was no doubt explained by his towering domination over the party. No other political party had ever been so closely tied to the personality of a single man. Lenin was the first modern party leader to achieve the status of a god: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao Zedong were all his successors in this sense. Being a Bolshevik had come to imply an oath of allegiance to Lenin as both the ‘leader’ and the ‘teacher’ of the party. It was this, above all, which distinguished the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks (who had no close leader of their own)…”[3]
Lenin’s ascent to power began during the First World War, when he
enrolled as a German agent. Thus on December 29, 1915 the German agent
Parvus (Gelfond) recorded receiving a million rubles in Russian
banknotes to support the revolutionary movement in Russia from the
German envoy in Copenhagen.[4] Still larger sums were given by Jewish
bankers in the West.[5]
However, until 1917 the German and
Jewish investment in Lenin did not seem to have paid off. His message
that the proletariat should turn the war between nations into a civil
war between classes had not been listened to even by other socialist
parties. But the February revolution – which took Lenin, who was living
behind enemy lines in Switzerland, completely by surprise – changed
everything.
“The German special services guaranteed his passage
through Germany in the sealed carriage. Among the passengers were:
Zinoviev, Radek, Rozenblum, Abramovich, Usievich, and also the majors of
the German General Staff, the professional spies Anders and Erich, who
had been cast in prison for subversive and diversionary work in Russia
in favour of Germany and the organization of a coup d’état. The next day
there arrived in Berlin an urgent secret report from an agent of the
German General Staff: ‘Lenin’s entrance into Russia achieved. He is
working completely according to our desires.’…”[6]
Although
History had not revealed to her acolyte what had been abundantly obvious
to many, that the Russian empire at the beginning of 1917 was on the
verge of collapse, nevertheless Lenin made up for lost time by trying to
jump ahead of History immediately he returned to Russia. Ignoring
Marxist teaching that the proletarian revolution must be preceded by a
period of bourgeois rule, he called for non-recognition of the
Provisional Government, all power to the Soviets and the immediate
cessation of the war. Even his own party found his position extreme, if
not simply mad[7] – but it was what the maddened revolutionary masses
wanted…
It was precisely the madness of Lenin that made him the
man of the moment, the politician best suited for those mad times. The
word “madness” here is not used in a wholly metaphorical sense. Of
course, in 1917 he was not mad in the sense that he had lost contact
with ordinary, everyday reality – his clever tactical manoeuvring and
his final success in October proves that he was more realistic about
Russian politics than many. But the photographs of him in his last
illness reveal a man who was truly mad – post-mortems showed that his
brain had been terribly damaged by syphilis. Moreover, in a spiritual
sense he was mad with the madness of the devil himself: he was
demonized, with an irrational rage against God and man, an urge to
destroy and kill and maim that can have no rational basis.
Ο
εμφανιζόμενος ως κομμουνιστής, επιχειρηματίας Φρίντριχ Ένγκελς. Ο
πρώτος ο οποίος έγραψε τη ρατσιστική έκφραση ''φυλετικά σκουπίδια'' στην
εφημερίδα του, Νόουα Ράινινς Ζάιτουνκ τον Ιουανουάριο του 1849. Ο άλλος παράφρων ονόματι Χίτλερ ακολούθησε κατά γράμμα
τις ρατσιστικές θεωρίες των Μάρξ και Ένγκελς, σε άλλη βάση όμως.
Εθνικός σοσιαλισμός και διεθνιστικός σοσιαλισμός είναι δύο
αντιχριστιανικά συστήματα πρόδρομοι του αντιχρίστου. Δυστυχώς υπάρχουν
ορθόδοξοι πιστοί οι οποίοι ψήφισαν και ψηφίζουν πολιτικά κόμματα που
πρεσβεύουν τις δαιμονικές ιδέες των συστημάτων αυτών.
As
the SR leader Victor Chernov wrote in 1924: “Nothing to him was worse
than sentimentality, a name he was ready to apply to all moral and
ethical considerations in politics. Such things were to him trifles,
hypocrisy, ‘parson’s talk’. Politics to him meant strategy, pure and
simple. Victory was the only commandment to observe; the will to rule
and to carry through a political program without compromise that was the
only virtue; hesitation, that was the only crime.
“It has been
said that war is a continuation of politics, though employing different
means. Lenin would undoubtedly have reversed this dictum and said that
politics is the continuation of war under another guise. The essential
effect of war on a citizen’s conscience is nothing but a legalization
and glorification of things that in times of peace constitute crime. In
war the turning of a flourishing country into a desert is a mere
tactical move; robbery is a ‘requisition’, deceit a stratagem, readiness
to shed blood of one’s brother military zeal; heartlessness towards
one’s victims is laudable self-command; pitilessness and inhumanity are
one’s duty. In war all means are good, and the best ones are precisely
the things most condemned in normal human intercourse. And as politics
is disguised war, the rules of war constitute its principles…”[8]
Archpriest Lev Lebedev writes that Lenin “understood the main thing in
Marx and Marxism and created not simply a political revolutionary party
on the basis of the economic and social ‘scientific’ theory of Marxism:
he founded a religion, and one, moreover, in which ‘god’ turned out to
be himself! In this lies the essence of all the disagreements between
Lenin and the legal Marxists like Struve and Plekhanov, and the
Mensheviks – that is, all those who through naivety and evident
misunderstanding took Marxism to be precisely a ‘scientific’ theory able
to serve the ‘radiant future’ of humanity, beginning with Russia… For
Lenin, as for Marx, the only thing that was necessary and important was
his personal power with the obligatory deification of his own person,
regardless not only of objections or criticisms, but even simply of
insufficient servility. Lenin (like Marx) considered himself to be
nothing less than the ‘Messiah’ – the ‘teacher’ and ‘leader’ not only of
Russian, but also of world significance. This was the psychology of the
Antichrist, which was reflected both in Lenin’s teaching on ‘the new
type of party’, and in the ‘world revolution’, and in the construction
of socialism in Russia, and in his ‘philosophy’, and in his methods of
‘leadership’, when he and his ‘comrades’ came to power. In the sphere of
politics Lenin was always, from the very beginning, an inveterate
criminal. For him there existed no juridical, ethical or moral
limitations of any kind. All means, any means, depending on the
circumstances, were permissible for the attainment of his goal. Lies,
deceit, slander, treachery, bribery, blackmail, murder – this was the
almost daily choice of means that he and his party used, while at the
same time preserving for rank-and-file party members and the masses the
mask of ‘crystal honesty’, decency and humanity – which, of course,
required exceptional art and skilfulness in lying. Lenin always took a
special pleasure in news of murders, both individual and, still more
mass murders – carried out with impunity. At such moments he was
sincerely happy. This bloodthirstiness is the key to that special power
that ‘the leader of the world proletariat’ received from the devil and
the angels of the abyss. In the sphere of philosophy Lenin was amazingly
talentless. How to lie a little more successfully – that was
essentially his only concern in the sphere of ideas. But when he really
had to think, he admitted blunders that were unforgivable in a ‘genius’…
“But the question is: how could a teaching that conquered
millions of minds in Russia and throughout the world be created on the
basis of such an intellectually impoverished, primitive basis?! An
adequate answer can never be given if one does not take into account the
main thing about Marxism-Leninism – that it is not simply a teaching,
but a religion, a cult of the personality of its founders and each of
the successive ‘leaders’, that was nourished, not by human, but by
demonic forces from ‘the satanic depths’. Therefore its action on the
minds took place simultaneously with a demonic delusion that blinded and
darkened the reasoning powers. In order to receive such support from
hell, it was necessary to deserve it in a special way, by immersing
oneself (being ‘initiated’) into Satanism. And Lenin, beginning in 1905,
together with his more ‘conscious comrades’ immersed himself in it (in
particular, through the shedding of innocent blood), although there is
not information to the effect that he personally killed anybody. The
‘leader’ had to remain ‘unsullied’… By contrast with certain other
satanic religions, the religion of Bolshevism had the express character
of the worship of the man-god (and of his works as sacred scripture).
This was profoundly non-coincidental, since what was being formed here
was nothing other than the religion of the coming Antichrist. Lenin was
one of the most striking prefigurations of the Antichrist, one of his
forerunners, right up to a resemblance to the beast whose name is 666 in
certain concrete details of his life (his receiving of a deadly wound
and healing from it). Lenin was not able to create for himself a general
cult during his lifetime, since he was forced to share the worship of
the party and the masses with such co-workers as, for example, Trotsky.
But the ‘faithful Leninist’ Stalin was able truly to take ‘Lenin’s work’
to its conclusion, that is, to the point of absurdity… He fully
attained his own cult during the life and posthumous cult of personality
of his ‘teacher’. Lenin, who called religion ‘necrophilia’, was the
founder of the religion of his own corpse, the main ‘holy thing’ of
Bolshevism to this day! All this conditioned, to an exceptional degree,
the extraordinary power of Lenin and his party-sect…”[9]
Ο παράφρων εγκληματίας Στάλιν εργάστηκε ελάχιστα στη ζωή του, από τα
νειάτα του κυρίως ασχολήθηκε με την οργάνωση απεργιών, λήστευε τράπεζες
για να χρηματοδοτεί την σοσιαλιστική επανάσταση κατά του τσάρου, ήταν
αδίστακτος στο να σκοτώνει. Η δεύτερη γυναίκα
του λόγω της συμπεριφοράς του οδηγήθηκε για να γλυτώσει
απ' αυτόν στην αυτοκτονία. Τον γιό του από την πρώτη του γυναίκα τον
άφησε στα χέρια των ναζί όταν τον συνέλαβαν κατά την διάρκεια του
δευτέρου παγκοσμίου πολέμου και τον εκτέλεσαν, ενώ οι ναζί του πρότειναν
να τον ανταλλάξουν με κάποιον υψηλόβαθμο Γερμανό αξιωματικό.
The
Bolshevik party was indeed more like a religious sect than a normal
political party. While members of other parties, even socialist ones,
had a private life separate from their political life, this was not so
for the Bolsheviks and the parties modelled on them. Thus Igor
Shafarevich writes: “The German publicist V. Schlamm tells the story of
how in 1919, at the age of 15, he was a fellow-traveller of the
communists, but did not penetrate into the narrow circle of their
functionaries. The reason was explained to him twenty years later by one
of them, who by that time had broken with communism. It turns out that
Schlamm, when invited to join the party, had said: ‘I am ready to give
to the party everything except two evenings a week, when I listen to
Mozart.’ That reply turned out to be fatal: a man having interests that
he did not want to submit to the party was not suitable for it.
“Another aspect of these relations was expressed by Trotsky. Having
been defeated by his opponents, in a speech that turned out to be his
last at a party congress, he said: ‘I know that it is impossible to be
right against the party. One can be right only with the party, for
History has not created any other ways to realize rightness.’
“Finally, here is how Piatakov, already in disgrace and expelled from
the party, explained his relationship to the party to his party comrade
N.V. Valentinov. Remembering Lenin’s thesis: ‘the dictatorship of the
proletariat is a power realized by the party and relying on violence and
not bound by any laws’ (from the article, ‘The Proletarian Revolution
and the Renegade Kautsky’), Piatakov added that the central idea here
was not ‘violence’ but precisely ‘not being bound by any laws’. He said:
‘Everything that bears the seal of human will must not, cannot be
considered inviolable, as being bound by certain insuperable laws. Law
is a restriction, a ban, a decree that one phenomenon is impermissible,
another act is possible, and yet another impossible. When the mind holds
to violence as a matter of principle, is psychologically free, and is
not bound by any laws, limitations or obstacles, then the sphere of
possible action is enlarged to a gigantic degree, while the sphere of
the impossible is squeezed to an extreme degree, to the point of
nothingness… Bolshevism is the party that bears the idea of turning into
life that which is considered to be impossible, unrealizable and
impermissible… For the honour and glory of being in her ranks we must
truly sacrifice both pride and self-love and everything else. On
returning to the party, we cast out of our heads all convictions that
are condemned by it, even if we defended them when we were in
opposition… I agree that those who are not Bolsheviks and in general the
category of ordinary people cannot in a moment make changes, reversals
or amputations of their convictions… We are the party consisting of
people who make the impossible possible; penetrated by the idea of
violence, we direct it against ourselves, while if the party demands it,
if it is necessary and important for the party, we can by an act of
will in 24 hours cast out of our heads ideas that we have lived with for
years… In suppressing our convictions and casting them out, it is
necessary to reconstruct ourselves in the shortest time in such a way as
to be inwardly, with all our minds, with all our essence, in agreement
with this or that decision decreed by the party. Is it easy violently to
cast out of one’s head that which yesterday I considered to be right,
but which today, in order to be in complete agreement with the party, I
consider to be false? It goes without saying – no. Nevertheless, by
violence on ourselves the necessary result is attained. The rejection of
life, a shot in the temple from a revolver – these are sheer
trivialities by comparison with that other manifestation of will that I
am talking about. This violence on oneself is felt sharply, acutely, but
in the resort to this violence with the aim of breaking oneself and
being in complete agreement with the party is expressed the essence of
the real, convinced Bolshevik-Communist… I have heard the following form
of reasoning… It (the party) can be cruelly mistaken, for example, in
considering black that which is in reality clearly and unquestionably
white… To all those who put this example to me, I say: yes, I will
consider black that which I considered and which might appear to me to
be white, since for me there is no life outside the party and outside
agreement with it.’”[10]
Having completely surrendered their
minds and wills to the party, much as the Jesuits surrendered their
minds and wills to the Pope (Chernov compared Lenin to Torquemada), the
Bolsheviks were able to proceed to violence and bloodshed on a scale
that far exceeded the Inquisition or any previous tyranny in the history
of the world, casting aside the restraint of any and every morality.
Lenin called for “mass terror against the kulaks, priests and White
Guards”. And Trotsky said: “We must put an end, once and for all, to the
papist-Quaker babble about the sanctity of human life”.[11] Again, the
first issue of the Kiev Cheka, Krasnij Mech (The Red Sword) for 1918
proclaimed: “We reject the old systems of morality and ‘humanity’
invented by the bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit the ‘lower classes’.
Our morality has no precedent, and our humanity is absolute because it
rests on a new ideal. Our aim is to destroy all forms of oppression and
violence. To us, everything is permitted, for we are the first to raise
the sword not to oppress races and reduce them to slavery, but to
liberate humanity from its shackles… Blood? Let blood flow like water!
Let blood stain forever the black pirate’s flag flown by the
bourgeoisie, and let our flag be blood-red forever! For only through the
death of the old world can we liberate ourselves from the return of
those jackals!”[12]
In view of the fact that communism is by a
wide margin the most bloodthirsty movement in human history, having
already killed hundreds of millions of people worldwide (and we are
still counting), it is necessary to say a few words about this aspect of
its activity, which cannot be understood, according to Lebedev, without
understanding the movement’s “devil-worshipping essence. For the blood
it sheds is always ritualistic, it is a sacrifice to demons. St. John
Chrysostom wrote: ‘It is a habit among the demons that when men give
Divine worship to them with the stench and smoke of blood, they, like
bloodthirsty and insatiable dogs, remain in those places for eating and
enjoyment.’ It is from such bloody sacrifices that the Satanists receive
those demonic energies which are so necessary to them in their struggle
for power or for the sake of its preservation. It is precisely here
that we decipher the enigma: the strange bloodthirstiness of all,
without exception all, revolutions, and of the whole of the regime of
the Bolsheviks from 1917 to 1953.”[13]
That communism, a
strictly “scientific” and atheist doctrine, should be compared to
devil-worshipping may at first seem strange. And yet closer study of
communist history confirms this verdict. The communists’ extraordinary
hatred of God and Christians, and indeed of mankind in general, can only
be explained by demon-possession – more precisely, by an unconscious
compulsion to bring blood-sacrifices to the devil, who was, in Christ’s
words, “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8.44)…
The
spirit of Leninism was not confined to the Soviet Union, but can be
found wherever communism triumphs. To illustrate this point, let us take
the example of Mao-Tse-Tung – with Stalin, the foremost disciple of the
Leninist faith, who came to maturity at precisely this time. Mao’s
biographers, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, write: “In the winter of
1917-18, still a student as he turned twenty-four, he wrote extensive
commentaries on a book called A System of Ethics, by a minor late
nineteenth-century German philosopher, Friedrich Paulsen. In these
notes, Mao expressed the central elements in his own character, which
stayed consistent for the remaining six decades of his life and defined
his rule.
“Mao’s attitude to morality consisted of one core,
the self, ‘I’, above everything else: ‘I do not agree with the view that
to be moral, the motive of one’s action has to be benefiting others.
Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others… People like
me want to… satisfy our hearts to the full, and in so doing we
automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are
people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me.’
“Mao shunned all constraints of responsibility and duty. ‘People like
me only have a duty to ourselves; we have no duty to other people.’ ‘I
am responsible only for the reality that I know,’ he wrote, ‘and
absolutely not responsible for anything else. I don’t know about the
past, I don’t know about the future. They have nothing to do with the
reality of my own self.’ He explicitly rejected any responsibility
towards future generations. ‘Some say one has a responsibility for
history. I don’t believe it. I am only concerned about developing
myself… I have my desire and act on it. I am responsible to no one.’
“Mao did not believe in anything unless he could benefit from it
personally. A good name after death, he said, ‘cannot bring me any joy,
because it belongs to the future and not to my own reality.’ ‘People
like me are not building achievements to leave for future generations.’
Mao did not care what he left behind.
“He argued that conscience could go to hell if it was in conflict with his impulses:
“‘These two should be one and the same. All our actions… are driven by
impulse, and the conscience that is wise goes along with this in every
instance. Sometimes… conscience restrains impulses such as over-eating
or over-indulgence in sex. But conscience is only there to restrain, not
oppose. And the restraint is for better completion of the impulse.’
Κοιτάζοντας στα μάτια έναν άνθρωπο κατανοείς πολλά. Ο συγκεκριμένος κοιταζει σαν σχιζοφρενής. Μερικά από τα αποφθέγματα του εγκληματία Λένιν:
Γιά την τρομοκρατία...
«Η τρομοκρατία είναι απαραίτητη καί αδιαφορώ γιά τό τί λένε οι υποκριτές καί λογοκάπηλοι.»
«Είμεθα όλοι Τσεκισταί.» (Τσέκα, ήταν η μυστική αστυνομία που ίδρυσε ο
Λένιν καί που κατατρομοκρατούσε τόν λαό συλλαμβάνοντας τούς Χριστιανούς
καί όλους όσους υπέπιπταν στή δυσμένια του Κομμουνιστικού κόμματος).
«Ο τρόμος είναι εργαλείο κοινωνικής υγιεινής.»
Γιά τις εκτελέσεις καί την Κομμουνιστική ασυνέπεια...
« Μας κατηγορούν ότι τότε καλούσαμε σέ συμμαχία εναντίον του Τσάρου
ακόμη καί τούς αστούς Δημοκράτες, ενώ τώρα στέλνουμε στό εκτελεστικό
απόσπασμα ακόμη καί τούς αριστερούς σοσιαλεπαναστάτες καί τούς
Μενσεβίκους (!!!). Καί μάς ερωτούν: Δέν είναι αυτό ασυνέπεια; Καί
απαντούμε: Βεβαίως καί είναι. Αλλά όποιος εκπλήσσεται γι΄ αυτήν τήν
ασυνέπεια είναι πολιτικώς ηλήθιος.»
« Μας κατηγορούν ότι τότε τάζαμε λαγούς μέ πετραχήλια καί τώρα δέν
τηρούμε τίς υποσχέσεις μας. Αλλά τότε σκοπός μας ήταν η επανάστασις.
Γίνεται επανάστασις χωρίς νά δίνουμε αφειδώς υποσχέσεις; Τώρα είμεθα
Εξουσία καί τά πράγματα αλλάζουν... (!!!). »
« Πόλεμος χωρίς έλεος απέναντι στους κουλάκους! Θάνατος σε αυτούς.»
« Θα ρωτήσουμε τον άνθρωπο: πού τοποθετείσαι στο θέμα της επανάστασης;
Είσαι μαζί της ή εναντίον της; Αν είναι εναντίον της θά τόν στήσουμε κί
εμείς ενάντια στόν τοίχο γιά εκτέλεση. »
Για την Κομμουνιστική ηθική.
« Οι Κομμουνισταί πρέπει νά ξέρουν, άν είναι αναγκαίο νά κάνουν κάθε
ελιγμό καί κάθε στρατήγημα, νά συγκαλύπτουν τήν αλήθεια, νά
χρησιμοποιούν παράνομες μεθόδους (!!!). »
Γιά τή θρησκεία.
« Ο Μαρξισμός είναι Υλισμός. Ώς τοιούτος λοιπόν, είναι ανοικτίρμων
εχθρός της θρησκείας... Μαχόμεθα κατά της θρησκείας. Τούτο αποτελεί το
άλφα-βήτα πάσης υλιστικής κοσμοθεωρίας καί συνεπώς καί του Μαρξισμού.
Αλλά ο Μαρξισμός δέν μόνο είναι μία υλιστική κοσμοθεωρία που σταματά είς
τό άλφα-βήτα. Ο Μαρξισμός προχωρεί περεταίρω . Διδάσκει ότι πρέπει νά
γνωρίζομεν πως νά πολεμούμε τη θρησκεία. »
« Κάθε θρησκευτική ιδέα, κάθε ιδέα του Θεού, ακόμα καί μία
ερωτοτρόπηση μέ τήν ιδέα του Θεού, είναι απερίγραπτη χυδαιότητα του πιό
επικίνδυνου είδους, μολυσματική ασθένεια του απεχθεστέρου είδους.
Εκατομμύρια αμαρτιών, ανήθικες πράξεις βίας καί φυσικής μολύνσεως, είναι
πολύ λιγότερο επικίνδυνες από την ύπουλη ιδέα του Θεού.»
« Ο κύριος εχθρός του κομμουνισμού είναι ο χριστιανικός κλήρος.»
Από το βιβλίο "Αρχιεπίσκοπος Άγιος Λουκάς ο ιατρός":
Από την πρώτη μέρα της επανάστασης η Ρωσική Εκκλησία μπήκε στο
στόχαστρο. Ο Λένιν δεν έκρυβε το μίσος του για την Εκκλησία. Έλεγε: "Ο
Μαρξ φάνηκε πολύ επιεικής απέναντι στην θρησκεία με το να την ονομάζει
"όπιο του λαού". Η θρησκεία είναι ένα είδος χαλασμένης βότκας. Όσο πιο
πολλοί τουφεκιστούν από τις τάξεις των αστών και του κλήρου, τόσο το
καλύτερο."
Έγραφε στον λαϊκό επίτροπο δικαιοσύνης (σχετικά με το πως θα οργανωθεί η άμυνα απέναντι στην αντεπανάσταση): "Σύντροφε Κούρσκι (...) σας στέλνω την συμπληρωματική παράγραφο του Ποινικού Κώδικα. Ελπίζω να είναι καθαρή η "βασική σκέψη" παρά τα ελαττώματα του σχεδίου, να προβληθεί δηλαδή ανοιχτά η πολιτικά σωστή θέση, που δικαιώνει την τρομοκρατία την αναγκαιότητά της, και τα απεριόριστα όριά της."
Στο
βιβλίο του "Μαθήματα από την Παρισινή Κομμούνα" αναλύει τους λόγους που
απέτυχε, και καταλήγει στο συμπέρασμα ότι η βασική αιτία της αποτυχίας
ήταν ότι η Κομμούνα το 1871, σκότωσε πολύ λίγους ανθρώπους. Έπρεπε να
εξαφανιστούν ολόκληρες τάξεις από τον πληθυσμό του Παρισιού. Από τον
Δεκέμβριο του 1917 άρχισαν τα πρώτα διατάγματα εναντίον της Εκκλησίας
και υπήρξαν τα πρώτα θύματα πιστών που έτρεχαν να υπερασπιστούν τους
ναούς τις εικόνες και τα ιερά λείψανα.
“As
conscience always implies some concern for other people, and is not a
corollary of hedonism, Mao was rejecting the concept. His view was: ‘I
do not think these [commands like “do not kill”, “do not steal”, and “do
not slander] have anything to do with conscience. I think they are only
out of self-interest for self-preservation.’ All considerations must
‘be purely calculation for oneself, and absolutely not for obeying
external ethical codes, or for so-called feelings of responsibility…’
“Absolute selfishness and irresponsibility lay at the heart of Mao’s outlook.
“These attributes he held to be reserved for ‘Great Heroes’ – a group to which he appointed himself. For this elite, he said:
“‘Everything outside their nature, such as restrictions and
constraints, must be swept away by the great strength in their nature…
When Great Heroes give full play to their impulses, they are
magnificently powerful, stormy and invincible. Their power is like a
hurricane arising from a deep gorge, and like a sex-maniac on heat and
prowling for a lover… there is no way to stop them.’
“The other
central element in his character which Mao spelt out now was the joy he
took in upheaval and destruction. ‘Giant wars,’ he wrote, ‘will last as
long as heaven and earth and will never become extinct… The ideal of a
world of Great Equality and Harmony [da tong, Confucian ideal society]
is mistaken.’ This was not just the prediction that a pessimist might
make; it was Mao’s desideratum, which he asserted was what the
population at large wished. ‘Long-lasting peace,’ he claimed, ‘is
unendurable to human beings, and tidal waves of disturbance have to be
created in this state of peace… When we look at history, we adore the
times of [war] when dramas happened one after another… which make
reading about them great fun. When we get to the periods of peace and
prosperity, we are bored… Human nature loves sudden swift changes.’
“Mao simply collapsed the distinction between reading about stirring
events and actually living through cataclysm. He ignored the fact that,
for the overwhelming majority, war meant misery.
“He even articulated a cavalier attitude towards death:
“‘Human beings are endowed with the sense of curiosity. Why should we
treat death differently? Don’t we want to experience strange things?
Death is the strangest thing, which you will never experience if you go
on living… Some are afraid of it because the change comes too
drastically. But I think this is the most wonderful thing: where else in
this world can we find such a fantastic and drastic change?’
“Using a very royal ‘we’, Mao went on: ‘We love sailing on a sea of
upheavals. To go from life to death is to experience the greatest
upheaval. Isn’t it magnificent!’ This might at first seem surreal, but
when later tens of millions of Chinese were starved to death under his
rule, Mao told his inner ruling circle it did not matter if people died –
and even that death was to be celebrated. As so often, he applied his
attitude only to other people, not to himself. Throughout his own life
he was obsessed with finding ways to thwart death, doing everything he
could to perfect his security and enhance his medical care.
“When he came to the question ‘How do we change [China]?’, Mao laid the
utmost emphasis on destruction: ‘the country must be… destroyed and then
re-formed.’ He extended this line not just to China but to the whole
world – and even the universe: ‘This applies to the country, to the
nation, and to mankind… The destruction of the universe is the same…
People like me long for its destruction, because when the old universe
is destroyed, a new universe will be formed. Isn’t that better!’”[14]
On
January 19 / February 1, 1918 his Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow
anathematized the Bolsheviks and all those who cooperated with them. And
on August 8, 1918, in an address “to all the faithful children of the
Russian Orthodox Church”, he said: “Sin has fanned everywhere the flame
of the passions, enmity and wrath; brother has risen up against brother;
the prisons are filled with captives; the earth is soaked in innocent
blood, shed by a brother’s hand; it is defiled by violence, pillaging,
fornication and every uncleanness. From this same poisonous source of
sin has issued the great deception of material earthly goods, by which
our people is enticed, forgetting the one thing necessary. We have not
rejected this temptation, as the Saviour Christ rejected it in the
wilderness. We have wanted to create a paradise on earth, but without
God and His holy commandments. God is not mocked. And so we hunger and
thirst and are naked upon the earth, blessed with an abundance of
nature’s gifts, and the seal of the curse has fallen on the very work of
the people and on all the undertakings of our hands. Sin, heavy and
unrepented of, has summoned Satan from the abyss, and he is now
bellowing his slander against the Lord and against His Christ, and is
raising an open persecution against the Church.”[15]
In
characterizing Socialism in similar terms to those used by Dostoyevsky’s
Grand Inquisitor, as the temptation to create bread out of stones which
Christ rejected, the Patriarch certainly gave a valid critique of
Socialism as it was and still is popularly understood – that is, as a
striving for social justice on earth, or, as the former Marxist Fr.
Sergius Bulgakov put it in 1917, “the thought that first of all and at
any price hunger must be conquered and the chains of poverty broken…
Socialism does not signify a radical reform of life, it is charity, one
of its forms as indicated by contemporary life – and nothing more. The
triumph of socialism would not introduce anything essentially new into
life.”[16] From this point of view, Socialism is essentially a
well-intentioned movement that has gone wrong because it fails to take
into account God, the commandments of God and the fallenness of human
nature.
However, as Igor Shafarevich has demonstrated,
Socialism in its more radical form – that is, Revolutionary Socialism
(Bolshevism, Leninism, Maoism) as opposed to Welfare Socialism - is very
little concerned with justice and not at all with charity. Its real
motivation is simply satanic hatred, hatred of the whole of the old
world and all those in it, and the desire to destroy it to its very
foundations. Its supposed striving for social justice is only a cover, a
fig-leaf, a propaganda tool for the attainment of this purely
destructive aim, which can be analyzed into four objects: the
destruction of: (i) hierarchy, (ii) private property, (iii) the family,
and (iv) religion.[17]
1. Hierarchy. Hierarchy had already
largely been destroyed by the time the Bolsheviks came to power: from
that time the only hierarchy was the Communist Party and all others were
equally miserable in relation to it.
2. Private Property.
Lenin’s famous slogan: “Loot the loot” (grab’ nagrablennoe) expresses
the Party’s relationship to property. And by the end of the Civil War
all property and privilege of any significance had passed into the hands
of the new aristocracy, the Communist Party. Lenin’s plans were aided
by a characteristic of the peasants (not all of them, of course, but
probably the majority) that has already been noted: their refusal to
admit the right of any but peasants to the land. Richard Pipes writes:
“The peasant was revolutionary in one respect only: he did not
acknowledge private ownership of land. Although on the eve of the
Revolution he owned nine-tenths of the country’s arable, he craved for
the remaining 10 percent held by landlords, merchants, and noncommunal
peasants. No economic or legal arguments could change his mind: he felt
he had a God-given right to that land and that someday it would be his.
And by his he meant the commune’s, which would allocate it justly to its
members. The prevalence of communal landholding in European Russia was,
along with the legacy of serfdom, a fundamental fact of Russian social
history. It meant that along with a poorly developed sense for law, the
peasnt also had little respect for private property. Both tendencies
were exploited and exacerbated by radical intellectuals for their own
ends to incite the peasants against the status quo.
“Russia’s
industrial workers were potentially destabilizing not because they
assimilated revolutionary ideologies – very few of them did and even
they were excluded from leadership positions in the revolutionary
parties. Rather, since most of them were one or at most two generations
removed fro m the village and only superficially urbanized, they carried
with them to the factory rural attitudes only slightly adjusted to
industrial conditions. They were not socialists but syndicalists,
believing that as their village relatives were entitled to all the land,
so they had a right to the factories…”[18]
3. The Family.
Oliver Figes writes: “The Bolsheviks envisaged the building of their
Communist utopia as a constant battle against custom and habit. With the
end of the Civil War they prepared for a new and longer struggle on the
‘internal front’, a revolutionary war for the liberation of the
communistic personality through the eradication of individualistic
(‘bourgeois’) behaviour and deviant habits (prostitution, alcoholism,
hooliganism and religion) inherited from the old society. There was
little dispute among the Bolsheviks that this battle to transform human
nature would take decades. There was only disagreement about when the
battle should begin. Marx had taught that the alteration of
consciousness was dependent on changes to the material base, and Lenin,
when he introduced the NEP, affirmed that until the material conditions
of a Communist society had been created – a process that would take an
entire historical epoch – there was no point trying to engineer a
Communist system of morality in private life. But most Bolsheviks did
not accept that the NEP required a retreat from the private sphere. On
the contrary, as they were increasingly inclined to think, active
engagement was essential at every moment and in every battlefield of
everyday life – in the family, the home and the inner world of the
individual, where the persistence of old mentalities was a major threat
to the Party’s basic ideological goals. And as they watched the
individualistic instincts of the ‘petty-bourgeois’ masses become
stronger in the culture of the NEP, they redoubled their efforts. As
Anatoly Lunacharsky wrote in 1927: ‘The so-called sphere of private life
cannot slip away from us, because it is precisely here that the final
goal of the Revolution is to be reached.’
“The family was the
first arena in which the Bolsheviks engaged the struggle. In the 1920s,
they took it as an article of faith that the ‘bourgeois family’ was
socially harmful: it was inward-looking and conservative, a stronghold
of religion, superstition, ignorance and prejudice; it fostered egotism
and material acquisitiveness, and oppressed women and children. The
Bolsheviks expected that the family would disappear as Soviet Russia
developed into a fully socialist system, in which the state took
responsibility for all the basic household functions, providing
nurseries, laundries and canteens in public centres and apartment
blocks. Liberated from labour in the home, women would be free to enter
the workforce on an equal footing with men. The patriarchal marriage,
with its attendant sexual morals, would die out – to be replaced, the
radicals believed, by ‘free unions of love’.
Διαφορές
δεν υπάρχουν παρά μόνο στο μουστάκι. Ο Χίτλερ εθνικοσοσιαλιστής,
παγανιστής, αντιχριστιανός, εγκληματίας κατά της ανθρωπότητος εν ονόματι
της δημιουργίας ενός νέου ανθρώπου, του ανώτερου λευκού. Ο Στάλιν,
άθεος, διεθνιστής σοσιαλιστής, αντιχριστιανός, εγκληματίας κατά της
ανθρωπότητος εν ονόματι της δημιουργίας ενός νέου ανθρώπου, του
σοβιετικού ανθρώπου. Το αποτέλεσμα το ίδιο, εκατομμύρια αθώοι νεκροί. Ο
εχθρός πίσω από τους δύο παράφρωνες ένας και πατέρας τους ο ίδιος, ο διάβολος.
“As
the Bolsheviks saw it, the family was the biggest obstacle to the
socialization of children. ‘By loving a child, the family turns him into
an egotistical being, encouraging him to see himself as the centre of
the universe,’ wrote the Soviet educational thinker Zlata Lilina.
Bolshevik theorists agreed on the need to replace this ‘egotistic love’
with the ‘rational love’ of a broader ‘social family’. The ABC of
Communism (1919) envisaged a future society in which parents would no
longer use the word ‘my’ to refer to their children, but would care for
all the children in their community. Among the Bolsheviks there were
different views about how long this change would take. Radicals argued
that the Party should take direct action to undermine the family
immediately, but most accepted the arguments of Bukharin and NEP
theorists that in a peasant country such as Soviet Russia the family
would remain for some time the primary unity of production and
consumption and that it would weaken gradually as the country made the
transition to an urban socialist society.
“Meanwhile the Bolsheviks adopted various strategies – such as the
transformation of domestic space – intended to accelerate the
disintegration of the family. To tackle the housing shortages in the
overcrowded cities the Bolsheviks compelled wealthy families to share
their apartments with the urban poor – a policy known as ‘condensation’
(uplotnenie). During the 1920s the most common type of communal
apartment (kommunalka) was one in which the original owners occupied the
main rooms on the ‘parade side’ while the back rooms were filled by
other families. At that time it was still possible for the former owners
to select their co-inhabitants, provided they fulfilled the ‘sanitary
norm’ (a per capita allowance of living space which fell from 13.5
square metres in 1926 to just 9 square metres in 1931). Many families
brought in servants or acquaintances to prevent strangers being moved in
to fill up the surplus living space. The policy had a strong
ideological appeal, not just as a war on privilege, which is how it was
presented in the propaganda of the new regime (‘War against the
Palaces!’), but also as part of a crusade to engineer a more collective
way of life. By forcing people to share communal apartments, the
Bolsheviks believed that they could make them communistic in their basic
thinking and behaviour. Private space and property would disappear, the
individual (‘bourgeois’) family would be replaced by communistic
fraternity and organization, and the life of the individual would become
immersed in the community. From the middle of the 1920s, new types of
housing were designed with this transformation in mind. The most radical
Soviet architects, like the Constructivists in the Union of
Contemporary Architects, proposed the complete obliteration of the
private sphere by building ‘commune houses’ (doma kommuny) where all the
property, including even clothes and underwear, would be shared by the
inhabitants, where domestic tasks like cooking and childcare would be
assigned to teams on a rotating basis, and where everybody would sleep
in one big dormitory, divided by gender, with private rooms for sexual
liaisons. Few houses of this sort were ever built, although they loomed
large in the utopian imagination and futuristic novels such as Yevgeny
Zamiatin’s We (1920). Most of the projects which did materialize, like
the Narkomfin (Ministry of Finance) house in Moscow (1930) designed by
the Constructivist Moisei Ginzburg, tended to stop short of the full
communal form and included both private living spaces and communalized
blocks for laundries, baths, dining rooms and kitchens, nurseries and
schools. Yet the goal remained to marshal architecture in a way that
would induce the individual to move away from private (‘bourgeois’)
forms of domesticity to a more collective way of life.
“The
Bolsheviks also intervened more directly in domestic life. The new Code
on Marriage and the Family (1918) established a legislative framework
that clearly aimed to facilitate the breakdown of the traditional
family. It removed the influence of the Church from marriage and
divorce, making both a process of simple registration with the state. It
granted the same legal rights to de facto marriages (couples living
together) as it gave to legal marriages. The Code turned divorce from a
luxury for the rich to something that was easy and affordable for all.
The result was a huge increase in casual marriages and the highest rate
of divorce in the world – three times higher than in France or Germany
and twenty-six times higher than in England by 1926 – as the collapse of
the Christian-patriarchal order and the chaos of the revolutionary
years loosened sexual morals along with family and communal ties.”[19]
Άλλος ένας εγκληματίας κατά της ανθρωπότητος, ο κομμουνιστής ηγέτης της Κίνας Μάο, τον οποίον κάποιοι πολιτικοί δυστυχώς εμμέσως τον υποστηρίζουν. Παραθέτουμε απόσπασμα από την συνεντευξη που έδωσε το 2008, ο πρώην πρωθυπουργός Αλέξης Τσίπρας στο schooligans.gr, Δείτε όλη την συνέντευξη εδω και εδώ.
Είπες ότι θαυμάζεις τη «διαχρονική σκέψη του Μάο». Πώς μπορείς να θαυμάζεις μια σκέψη που η εφαρμογή της στην Κίνα έφερε λογοκρισία, φυλακίσεις, δολοφονίες;
Παιδιά, εγώ δεν είπα ότι θαυμάζω τον Μάο. Είπα ότι η σκέψη του Μάο -όχι ο
Μάο ως προσωπικότητα, όχι ο Μάο ως διοίκηση, όχι ο Μάο ως καθεστώς-
αλλά η σκέψη του Μάο σε πολλά σημεία της αξίζει. Το πιστεύω αυτό.
Ένα παράδειγμα;
Ας πούμε, η σκέψη πίσω από την Πολιτιστική Επανάσταση του Μάο είναι ότι
πρέπει συνεχώς να αμφισβητούμε τις δομές και την νομενκλατούρα, ακόμα
και όταν είμαστε μέσα στην «επαναστατική» διαδικασία. Αυτή είναι μια
σημαντική σκέψη. (Σχόλιο Εγκολπίου: Σημειώστε πως η πολιτιστική επανάσταση του Μαό είχε εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες νεκρούς...)
Μα αυτό είναι αστείο! Δηλαδή ο Μάο στη θεωρία ενθάρρυνε την αμφισβήτηση και στην πράξη επέβαλε τη λογοκρισία;
Είναι πολύ αντιφατικό, το ξέρω. Ο Μάο εκτιμούσε ότι αυτό που κάνει είναι
ένα βήμα προς τη σοσιαλιστική κοινωνία. Και πίστευε ότι ο σκοπός
αγιάζει τα μέσα. Αλλά, ο σκοπός του, η πρόθεσή του ήταν καλή.
Απ’ αυτή την καλή πρόθεση πέθαναν 38 εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι! Περισσότεροι απ’ όσους σκότωσε και ο Χίτλερ!
Ε, τώρα δεν μπορούμε να συγκρίνουμε τον Χίτλερ με τον Μάο! Μπορεί τα
κομμουνιστικά καθεστώτα να είχαν αυτό το τεράστιο έλλειμμα ελευθερίας,
αλλά τουλάχιστον είχαν στο κέντρο της σκέψης τους τον άνθρωπο. (Σχόλιο Εγκολπίου: Λέει ο πρώην πρωθυπουργός Τσίπρας ότι τα κομμουνιστικά καθεστώτα είχαν στο κέντρο της σκέψης τους τον άνθρωπο... Και ότι δεν μπορούμε να συγκρίνουμε τον Χίτλερ με τον Μάο... Γιατί σκέφτεται έτσι ένας άνθρωπος που αυτοαποκαλείται αριστερός, χαζός δεν είναι και ξέρει ότι και ο Χίτλερ και ο Μάο έστειλαν στο τάφο εκατομμύρια ανθρώπους, ο καθένας λόγω της ιδεολογίας του; Διότι απλούστατα οι αριστεροί όπως και οι φασίστες είναι ιδεοληπτικοί και δεν θέλουν να παραδεχτούν τα εγκλήματα των πολιτικών προγόνων τους.)
Αυτό λίγο ενδιαφέρει τον άνθρωπο που πεθαίνει...
Όχι, δεν είναι έτσι. Και τέλος πάντων δεν είχαν ούτε κρεματόρια ούτε φούρνους με Εβραίους... (Σ. Ε. : Είχαν τα γκουλάγκ (στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης) σε μέρη όπου η θερμοκρασία έπεφτε μέχρι και 40 υπό το μηδέν, τεράστια κτήρια χωρίς θέρμανση, εξαντλητική εργασία επί ώρες κάθε μέρα, ψυχολογική και σωματική βία, λίγη τροφή σε σημείο ασιτίας, εκτελέσεις μαζικές σε ομαδικούς τάφους, διώξεις αναλόγως της εθνικής ταυτότητας, διώχθηκαν οι Τατάροι, οι Έλληνες Πόντιοι, οι Ουκρανοί, οι Εσθονοί και πολλοί άλλοι. Τί διαφορετικό έκανε ο Χίτλερ; Τόσο αδιάβαστος ήταν ο τότε πρόεδρος του Σύριζα και μετέπειτα πρωθυπουργός Αλέξης Τσίπρας;)
Νεκρούς πάντως είχαν περισσότερους!
Καταρχάς, αυτοί οι αριθμοί αμφισβητούνται. Μένει να αποδειχθούν ιστορικά και τότε να το ξανασυζητήσουμε. (Σ. Ε. : Και οι νεοναζί αμφισβητούν τους φούρνους, το ολοκαύτωμα και έλεγαν στις συνεντεύξεις τους ότι ο Χίτλερ είναι μία μορφή που ακόμη δεν έχει κριθεί από την ιστορία...)
Έτσι κι αλλιώς, η πραγματική του πρόθεση φάνηκε στην πράξη! Προτεραιότητα ήταν ο εαυτός του και όχι η κοινωνία!
Δεν μπορώ να σας πείσω να εκτιμήσετε την σκέψη του Μάο.
Εσύ, πάντως, δέχεσαι ότι το καθεστώς του Μάο ήταν απολυταρχικό;
Ναι, βέβαια, διότι ήταν ένα καθεστώς ανελευθερίας. Αλλά σας είπα, πρέπει
να απομονώσουμε τη σκέψη από την ιστορική περίοδο και το αποτέλεσμα.
Και αυτό ισχύει για πολλές προσωπικότητες - από τον Λένιν μέχρι τον Τσε.
Εγώ μάλιστα εκτιμώ και τη σκέψη πολιτικών προσωπικοτήτων από την άλλη
πλευρά. (Σ. Ε. : Ο Λένιν και ο Τσέ Γκεβάρα ήταν άνθρωποι που πότισαν την γη με αίμα συνανθρώπων τους, εν ονόματι της ιδεολογίας τους. Ο Τσέ μάλιστα είχε φτιάξει και στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης για τους ομοφυλόφιλους στη Κούβα. Είχε γυριστεί και ταινία με τον Όλιβερ Ρίντ στον ρόλο ποιητή που φυλακίστηκε σε στρατόπεδο γιατί ήταν ομοφυλόφιλος.)
In
November, 1920 the Bolsheviks also legalized abortions; they were made
available free of charge at the mother’s request.[20] For “in Soviet
Russia,” writes Pipes, “as in the rest of Europe, World War I led to a
loosening of sexual mores, which here was justified on moral grounds.
The apostle of free love in Soviet Russia was Alexandra Kollontai, the
most prominent woman Bolshevik. Whether she practiced what she preached
or preached what she practiced, is not for the historian to determine;
but the evidence suggests that she had an uncontrollable sex drive
coupled with an inability to form enduring relationships. Born the
daughter of a wealthy general, terribly spoiled in childhood, she
reacted to the love lavished on her with rebellion. In 1906 she joined
the Mensheviks, then, in 1915, switched to Lenin, whose antiwar stand
she admired. Subsequently, she performed for him valuable services as
agent and courier.
“In her writings, Kollontai argued that the
modern family had lost its traditional economic function, which meant
that women should be set free to choose their partners. In 1919 she
published The New Morality and the Working Class, a work based on the
writings of the German feminist Grete Meisel-Hess. In it she maintained
that women had to be emancipated not only economically but also
psychologically. The ideal of ‘grand amour’ was very difficult to
realize, especially for men, because it clashed with their worldly
ambitions. To be capable of it, individuals had to undergo an
apprenticeship in the form of ‘love games’ or ‘erotic friendships’,
which taught them to engage in sexual relations free of both emotional
attachment and personal domination. Casual sex alone conditioned women
to safeguard their individuality in a society dominated by men. Every
form of sexual relationship was acceptable: Kollontai advocated what she
called ‘successive polygamy’. In the capacity of Commissar of
Guardianship (Prizrenia) she promoted communal kitchens as a way of
‘separating the kitchen from marriage’. She, too, wanted the care of
children to be assumed by the community. She predicted that in time the
family would disappear, and women should learn to treat all children as
their own. She popularized her theories in a novel, Free Love: The Love
of Worker Bees (Svobodnaia liubov’: liubov’ pchel trudovykh) (1924), one
part of which was called, ‘The Love of Three Generations’. Its heroine
preached divorcing sex from morality as well as from politics. Generous
with her body, she said she loved everybody, from Lenin down, and gave
herself to any man who happened to attract her.
“Although often
regarded as the authoritarian theoretician of Communist sex morals,
Kollontai was very much the exception who scandalized her colleagues.
Lenin regarded ‘free love’ as a ‘bourgeois’ idea – by which he meant not
so much extramarital affairs (with which he himself had had experience)
as casual sex…
“Studies of the sexual mores of Soviet youth
conducted in the 1920s revealed considerable discrepancy between what
young people said they believed and what they actually practiced:
unusually, in this instance behaviour was less promiscuous than theory.
Russia’s young people stated they considered love and marriage
‘bourgeois’ relics and thought Communists should enjoy a sexual life
unhampered by any inhibitions: the less affection and commitment entered
into male-female relations, the more ‘communist’ they were. According
to opinion surveys, students looked on marriage as confining and, for
women, degrading: the largest number of respondents – 50.8 percent of
the women and 67.3 of the women – expressed a preference for long-term
relationships based on mutual affection but without the formality of
marriage.
“Deeper probing of their attitudes, however, revealed
that behind the façade of defiance of tradition, old attitudes survived
intact. Relations based on love were the ideal of 82.6 percent of the
men and 90.5 percent of the women: ‘This is what they secretly long for
and dream about,’ according to the author of the survey. Few approved of
the kind of casual sex advocated by Kollontai and widely associated
with early Communism: a mere 13.3 percent of the men and 10.6 of the
women. Strong emotional and moral factors continued to inhibit casual
sex: one Soviet survey revealed that over half of the female student
respondents were virgins…”[21]
4. Religion. Of the four
destructive ends of Bolshevism, the most fundamental is the destruction
of religion, especially Christianity. The incompatibility between
Socialism and Christianity was never doubted by the apostles of
Socialism. Religion was to Marx “opium for the people”, and to Lenin –
“spiritual vodka”. Lenin wrote that “every religious idea, every idea of
a god, even flirting with the idea of God is unutterable vileness of
the most dangerous kind”.[22] And in 1918 he said to Krasin:
“Electricity will take the place of God. Let the peasant pray to
electricity; he’s going to feel the power of the central authorities
more than that of heaven.”[23] As Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote: “Within
the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their
psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more
fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant
atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy. It is
not a side-effect, but the central pivot…”[24]
As regards the
Bolshevik attitude to law, this was described by Latsis: “In the
investigation don’t search for materials and proofs that the accused
acted in word or deed against Soviet power. The first question which you
must put to him is: what is his origin, education, upbringing or
profession. These are the questions that must decide the fate of the
accused… If it is possible to accuse the Cheka of anything it is not in
excessive zeal in executions, but in not applying the supreme penalty
enough… We were always too soft and magnanimous towards the defeated
foe!”[25]
As for morality, in his address to the Third
All-Russian congress of the Union of Russian Youth in October, 1920,
Lenin wrote: "In what sense do we reject morality and ethics? In the
sense in which it is preached by the bourgeoisie, which has derived this
morality from the commandments of God. Of course, as regards God, we
say that we do not believe in Him, and we very well know that it was in
the name of God that the clergy used to speak, that the landowners
spoke, that the bourgeoisie spoke, so as to promote their exploitative
interests. Or… they derived morality from idealistic or semi-idealistic
phrases, which always came down to something very similar to the
commandments of God. All such morality which is taken from extra-human,
extra-class conceptions, we reject. We say that it is a deception, that
it is a swindle, that it is oppression of the minds of the workers and
peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists. We say that
our morality is entirely subject to the interests of the class struggle
of the proletariat. Our morality derives from the interests of the
class struggle of the proletariat."[26]
Of course, there is an
inner contradiction here. If God does not exist, and all the older
systems of morality are nonsense, why entertain any notions of good and
evil? And why prefer the interests of the proletariat to anyone else’s?
In fact, if God does not exist, then, as Dostoyevsky said, everything is
permitted and nothing is sacred – not even the interests of the
proletariat. And this is what we actually find in Bolshevism – a
complete disregard of the interests of any class or person, excepting
only of the Communist Party and its leader.
In any case, as
Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote: “The line dividing good and evil passes
not between states, not between classes, and not between parties – it
passes through each human heart – and through all human hearts…”[27]
Communism
cannot be defeated by political, but only by spiritual methods – not by
war, not by political re-education, but only by exorcism on a
collective scale. For, as Elder Aristocles of Moscow said in 1911,
communism is not an ideology, but a spirit from hell… Such exorcism has
hardly begun, as is witnessed by the fact that Russia is ruled today by a
chekist who toasts Stalin and calls the supposed fall of Soviet
communism in 1991 “a geo-political tragedy”, as also by the fact that
Lenin’s body still rests in honour in Red Square.[28] So the results of
tomorrow’s election will change nothing, whoever wins. Its only
significance lies in the fact that it coincides with the Orthodox feast
of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. And so, while the newest neo-Soviet leader
is being elected, the True Orthodox Churches – but not those of the
Sovietized Moscow Patriarchate, created by Stalin and still ruled by
Putin – will be resounding to the sound of Patriarch Tikhon’s anathema
against the Bolsheviks. For only Christ is the Church can defeat
communism, and only the resurrection of True Orthodoxy in Russia will
save the world…
Vladimir Moss.
February 20 / March 3, 2012.
First Saturday of the Great Fast.
Το μαυσωλείο στο οποίο βρίσκονταν τα ταριχευμένα πτώματα των Λένιν και Στάλιν, και από ένα χρονικό σημείο και μετά μόνο του Λένιν μέχρι την αυτοδιάλυση της Σοβιετικής Ένωσης όπου το μαυσωλείο καταργήθηκε. Οι εκκλησίες και οι μονές άνοιξαν και πάλι, οι ορθόδοξοι πιστοί μπορούσαν πια να ασκούν ελεύθερα τα της πίστης τους, χωρίς να τους περιμένει το εκτελεστικό απόσπασμα (μέθοδος που εφήρμοσαν οι Λένιν και Στάλιν) ή το ψυχιατρείο και ο αργός θάνατος από ακατάλληλα ψυχοφάρμακα σε υγιείς ανθρώπους (μέθοδος που εφήρμοσε ο Χρουτσώφ). Οι ψεύτικοι θεοί αποκαθηλώθηκαν και η ορθοδοξία έλαμψε με χιλιάδες χειροτονίες κληρικών, χιλιάδες κουρές μοναχών και μοναζουσών, εκατομμύρια βαπτίσεις και έντονη ιεραποστολή.
Ο κομμουνισμός αν και παρουσιάζεται ως διαλεκτικός υλισμός, αν και απορρίπτει την ύπαρξη του Θεού, στην ουσία του είναι θρησκεία. Ακριβώς όπως και ο εθνικοσοσιαλισμός του Χίτλερ όπου ο αρχηγός του κόμματος ήταν ένα είδος μεσσία που θα σώσει την ανθρωπότητα απο τους δήθεν κατώτερους μαύρους, εβραίους, τσιγγάνους κλπ. Οι άθεοι κομμουνιστές και εν γένει οι άθεοι αριστεροί θεωρούν παράλογο το ότι εμείς οι Χριστιανοί πιστεύουμε και λατρεύουμε τον Θεό, ασπαζόμεθα και τιμούμε ιερές εικόνες και ιερά λείψανα αγίων. Οι κομμουνιστές όταν επικράτησαν δια της βίας, όπου επικράτησαν, προσπάθησαν να καταστρέψουν τα σύμβολα λατρείας των πιστών. Οι ίδιοι όμως, αναιρώντας τον εαυτό τους και την ιδεοληψία τους ότι δήθεν είναι άθεοι, έφτιαξαν τους δικούς τους θεούς, τους οποίους τους ταρίχευσαν και τους έβαλαν σε μαυσωλείο για να τους τιμούν. Στις άνω φωτογραφίες βλέπετε τα πτώματα των δολοφόνων Λένιν και Στάλιν τα οποία το κομμουνιστικό κόμμα διατήρησε για να τα τιμούν και να νιώθουν δέος ενώπιον τους οι πιστοί του κόμματος. Επί Νικήτα Χρουτσώφ, ο οποίος προσπάθησε να αποσταλινοποιήσει την Σοβιετική Ένωση, το πτώμα του Στάλιν απομακρύνθηκε από το μαυσωλείο και ετάφη όπισθεν αυτού, αλλά δεν τόλμησε να βγάλει και του Λένιν, διότι έπρεπε οι πιστοί του κόμματος να έχουν τον θεό τους να τον βλέπουν. Ο Χρουτσώφ αποκάλυψε τα εγκλήματα του Στάλιν, δείχνωντας κρατικά έγγραφα και μιλώντας για εκατομμύρια νεκρούς. Βεβαίως ακόμη και σήμερα τα σταλινικά κόμματα, όπου γης έχουν απομείνει, και στην Πατρίδα μας, δεν παραδέχονται τίποτα αν και τις αποκαλύψεις τις έκανε ένας εκ των κοντινών ανθρώπων του Στάλιν, και στέλεχος με υψηλή θέση, ο Νικήτα Χρουτσώφ.
[1]
In What is to be Done? (1902), Lenin argued that in the conditions of
Tsarist Russia it was impossible for the party to live openly among the
people, but had to be an underground organization with strictly limited
membership. “In an autocratic state the more we confine the membership
of such a party to people who are professionally engaged in
revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the
art of combating the political police, the more difficult it will be to
wipe out such an organization” (in M.J. Cohen and John Major, History in
Quotations, London: Cassell, 2004, p. 678).
[2] Figes, A People’s Tragedy, London: Pimlico, 1997, p. 386.
[3] Figes, op. cit., pp. 389, 390, 391.
[4] Istoki Zla (Tajna Kommunizma) (The Sources of Evil (The Secret of Communism)), Moscow, 2002, p. 35.
[5]
See Anthony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,
Arlington, 1974; O.A. Platonov, Ternovij Venets Rossii (Russia’s Crown
of Thorns), Moscow, 1998, pp. 359-361.
[6] Istoki Zla, pp. 35-36.
[7]
I.P. Goldenberg saw Lenin as the successor of Bakunin, not Marx, and
his tactics those of “the universal apostle of destruction” (in Robert
Service, Lenin, 2000, p. 267).
[8] Chernov, “Lenin”, in Foreign Affairs, January-February, 2012, pp. 10-12.
[9] Lebedev, Velikorossia (Great Russia), St. Petersburg, 1999, pp. 445-447.
[10]
Shafarevich, Sotsializm kak iavlenie mirovoj istorii (Socialism as a
phenomenon of world history), Paris: YMCA Press, 1977, pp. 284-286.
[11] Niall Ferguson, The War of the World, London: Penguin, 2007, pp. 150, 148.
[12]
Nicholas Werth, “A State against its People”, in Stéphane Courtois,
Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Packowski, Karel Bartošek,
Jean-Louis Margolin, The Black Book of Communism, London: Harvard
University Press, 1999, p. 102.
[13] Lebedev, op. cit., p. 429.
[14] Chang and Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, London: Jonathan Cape, 2005, pp. 13-15.
[15] Regelson, Tragedia Russkoj Tserkvi, 1917-1945, Paris: YMCA Press, 1977, p. 52.
[16]
Bulgakov, Sotsializm i Khristianstvo (Socialism and Christianity),
Moscow, 1917; quoted in Shafarevich, op. cit., pp. 288, 289.
[17] Shafarevich, op. cit., p. 265.
[18] Pipes, Russia under the Bolshevik Regime, 1919-1924, London: Fontana, 1995, p. 494.
[19]
Figes, The Whisperers, London: Pimlico, 1997, pp. 7-10. Figes
continues: “In the early years of Soviet power, family breakdown was so
common among revolutionary activists that it almost constituted an
occupational hazard. Casual relationships were practically the norm in
Bolshevik circles during the Civil War, when any comrade could be sent
at a moment’s notice to some distant sector of the front. Such relaxed
attitudes remained common through the 1920s, as Party activists and
their young emulators in the Komsomol [Communist Youth League] were
taught to put their commitment to the proletariat before romantic love
or family. Sexual promiscuity was more pronounced in the Party’s
youthful ranks than among Soviet youth in general. Many Bolsheviks
regarded sexual licence as a form of liberation from bourgeois moral
conventions and as a sign of ‘Soviet modernity’. Some even advocated
promiscuity as a way to counteract the formation of coupling
relationships that separated lovers from the collective and detracted
from their loyalty to the Party.
“It was a commonplace that the
Bolshevik made a bad husband a father because the demands of the Party
took him away from the home. ‘We Communists don’t know our own
families,’ remarked one Moscow Bolshevik. ‘You leave early and come home
late. You seldom see your wife and almost never your children.’ At
Party congresses, where the issue was discussed throughout the 1920s, it
was recognized that Bolsheviks were far more likely than non-Party
husbands to abandon wives and families, and that this had much to do
with the primacy of Party loyalties over sexual fidelity. But in fact
the problem of absent wives and mothers was almost as acute in Party
circles, as indeed it was in the broader circle of the Soviet
intelligentsia, where most women were involved in the public sphere.
“Trotsky argued that the Bolsheviks were more affected than others by
domestic breakdown because they were ‘most exposed to the influence of
new conditions’. As pioneers of a modern way of life, Trotsky wrote in
1923, the ‘Communist vanguard merely passes sooner and more violently
through what is inevitable’ for the population as a whole. In many Party
households there was certainly a sense of pioneering a new type of
family – one that liberated both parents for public activities – albeit
at the cost of intimate involvement with their children.” (pp. 10-11)
[20] Pipes, op. cit., p. 330.
[21] Pipes, op. cit., pp. 331-332, 333.
[22]
Lenin, Letter to Gorky (1913), Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij (Collected
Works) (second edition, 1926-1932), vol. 17, pp. 81-86.
[23]
Liberman, S.I. “Narodnij komisar Krasin” (The People’s Commissar
Krasin), Novij zhurnal (The New Journal), № 7, 1944, p. 309; quoted in
Volkogonov, D. Lenin, London: Harper Collins, 1994, p. 372.
[24]
Solzhenitsyn, Acceptance Speech, Templeton Prize for Progress in
Religion, 1983; Russkaia Mysl' (Russian Thought), № 3465, 19 May, 1983,
p. 6.
[25] Latsis, Ezhenedel’nik ChK (Cheka Weekly), № 1,
November 1, 1918; in Priest Vladimir Dmitriev, Simbirskaia Golgofa
(Simbirsk’s Golgotha), Moscow, 1997, p. 4.
[26] Lenin, op. cit., vol. 41, p. 309.
[27]
Solzhenitsyn, Arkhipelag GULag (The GULag Archipelago), Paris: YMCA
Press, volume 2, p. 602. [28] With regard to Lenin’s mausoleum, Fr.
Michael Ardov recounts the following interesting anecdote: “While the
holy hierarch [Tikhon]was still alive, the first mausoleum, at that time
still wooden, was built on Red square. Evidently they built it hastily,
and soon after the work was finished an annoying event took place in
the new building – the water-closet broke down and a pipe began to gush
water. Rumours about this event began to spread through Moscow. They
told Patriarch Tikhon also, and he responded to the information shortly
and expressively: ‘From relics myrrh flows.’” (Posev (Sowing), 167,
1992, p. 251)
Πηγή: orthodoxchristianbooks.com, redskywarning.blogspot.com, omadaalithias.gr, stwmenkalws.blogspot.com, mixanitouxronou.gr, russianlife.com, kcmeesha.com
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου