Podcasts about kulaks

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin's crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin's Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it's mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn't seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn't fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin's crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin's attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin's crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/central-asian-studies

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin's crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin's Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it's mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn't seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn't fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin's crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin's attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin's crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

In his State of the Union address, Joe Biden repeatedly declared war on his political enemies. Bennett's Phylactery joins me to discuss how the administration hopes to extract wealth from middle America and what you can do to protect your household.  Follow on: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-auron-macintyre-show/id1657770114 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S6z4LBs8Fi7COupy7YYuM?si=4d9662cb34d148af Substack: https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre Gab: https://gab.com/AuronMacIntyre YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/c/AuronMacIntyre Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390155 Odysee: https://odysee.com/@AuronMacIntyre:f Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/auronmacintyre/ Today's sponsors:  Visit https://isi.org/ to learn more about internships, fellowships, and resources to help conservative students. Visit https://newfounding.com/talent to join the New Founding Talent Network. Find your next hire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Show notes and Transcript Arrested for swearing? Yes.  This is what happened to Abi Roberts as she protested outside the COVID Inquiry in London.  Abi returns to Hearts of Oak to discuss exactly what happened.  Why did she feel compelled to protest outside the COVID Inquiry and will it reveal anything or is it just another cover up?  Under what law did the police officer arrest her?  What powers do our police now have in the UK and is this the end of any free speech? Is swearing actually now prohibited or is it just illegal for Welsh comedians? Can we regain our freedom of speech or has this so called 'Conservative' government destroyed it?  Tune in for Abi's analysis following her unexpected night in the cells.  *Might contain swearing!  Abi Roberts is a British stand-up comedian, writer and commentator and is proud to be a stone in the shoe of the cowardly bauble-chasers in politics and the media. All lovers of truth, liberty, free speech and the pursuit of justice for the crimes committed over the last three years, are welcome to her party. Abi became a professional stand-up in 2012, and since then has played some of the biggest clubs across the UK, and had several sold-out shows at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.  She became a comedian because she wanted to write her own material and have the freedom to express her worldview – and make thousands of people laugh at the absurdity and wonder of life.  Abi's stand up show Anglichanka, which was about living and studying in Russia, gained her several 5 star rave reviews and the show toured the UK.  She was the first comedian to do shows in Moscow in both English and Russian, as Abi explains “My father was a spy… sorry, diplomat, so I went to the Soviet Union as a kid and then in the early 1990s I studied opera at the Moscow Conservatoire" Abi hosts a daily podcast and writes regular articles on her Substack.   Follow and support Abi at the following links... Websites:        https://abiroberts.com/                          https://www.cathycrunt.com/ Twitter:            https://twitter.com/abiroberts?s=20 GETTR:            https://gettr.com/user/abiroberts Substack:        http://abiroberts.substack.com/ Podcast:          https://abiroberts.substack.com/podcast Instagram:       https://instagram.com/abirober....tscomedy?utm_medium= YouTube:         https://www.youtube.com/user/AbiRobertsComedyDiva Interview recorded 21.7.23 *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more...  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ Please subscribe, like and share! Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Hello, Hearts of Oak, and welcome to another interview coming up with Abi Roberts, who re-joined us. Been a while since she was last with us. And of course, I know many of you will have seen the video of her being arrested for swearing. So she just tells us what she was there for, the Covid inquiry, which is in effect a whitewash, a little spoiler for you. She discusses what was happening there, why she was there at the whole yellow board, what that's about. And then the police telling her she'd be arrested if she swore again. So she did. And she was arrested. How the police have the right to arrest anyone, we look at the legislation and the overreach they now have. She was held in a cell until the middle of the night, then released. Why on earth that would be done? So join us as Abi shares her story in her unique style. Abi Roberts, it is wonderful to have you back. Thank you so much for joining us today. (Abi Roberts) It's my pleasure, Peter, my pleasure. A lot's happened since I last saw you. Lots. We're going to talk about Abi's campaign to make swearing legal again. So we'll get into all of that. For the viewers @AbiRoberts on social media, on Twitter, everywhere else, and her Substack, abiroberts.substack.com. If you don't get that, actually, just if you never signed up simply just to read her article, I think that's a great article on what happened to her as she swore and was arrested. It's a fantastic article, it lays it all out. So it's well worth signing up Substack for that, and then you'll see everything else. But can we start, Abi? I'm going to play one of the video clips that sets the scene and then we'll discuss why we're there, and how in their swearing is not illegal on the streets of Britain. So let's play this two minute clip. (Video plays) Police:  You are perfectly allowed to protest, you are not allowed to swear in the street. Abi:  I'm not allowed to swear in the street? It's OK if our government commits democide, cos' that's what's happened. So you're saying to me, swearing in the street is worse, is illegal, but it's legal to lock people in their homes, and give them, coerce them, you know I'm telling the truth. Police:  Madam, here's your warning. Abi:  Have you been coerced?  Police:  Swear again you're going to get arrested. Abi:  Swear again? Well fuck... fuck you.  Police:  You are under arrest for swearing   Abi:  You are joking, you are joking, you are joking. You've seen this and you're all complicit. You know and you're going to call me an anti-vaxxer. I'm anti-tyranny, I'm anti-democide. You absolute bastards. You're arresting me for swearing, but you're not talking about democide that's been committed against the British people, lockdowns, gene therapies, how dare you. You're getting all this guys, this is Britain, this is United Kingdom. If you're not angry, there's something wrong with you. There's something wrong with you. Police:  Can you stop swearing?  Abi:  If I stop swearing, am I allowed to talk about democide? Am I allowed to talk about crimes against the British people? Do you agree with the lockdowns? Do you agree that the British people, they knew that thousands, hundreds of thousands of people were going to die. They knew at the very beginning that the lockdowns were going to kill thousands and thousands of people. Are you getting this? Are you recording any of this?  Police:  Listen to me. Abi:  So you agree the British government... Police:  I'm not getting into that. Abi:  And all the politicians were against the British people? Police:  We can have a conversation. Abi:  Can we?  Police:  Yeah. All we wanted you to do was stay on that side of the road. Abi:  Are you getting this? I'm being arrested for swearing. Police:  Just listen to what he's saying.  Abi:  I am listening. This is the UK! How dare you! (video ends) So, that's Abi in full flow.  Good grief. You know what, Peter? I don't think I've seen that in full. I'm actually, I feel quite, do you know what? I'm going to say it. I feel damn proud of myself. If only there were more people that told it how it is.  100%. When, you know what I mean? And it's weird. I feel good. God, I've got kind of goose bumps because obviously it was all just happening kind of in the moment. And, but wow, it's weird, you know, it's almost like a lot of the, like a lot of the stuff I've been doing for two and a half, three years has led to that moment, if that doesn't sound too, like, I have a dream, you know, it's like one of those things where you, you prepare for these things all your life, in little ways, you know, saying, saying what you mean, what you feel, without being afraid, and truth. It's weird, pure truth, when you speak it to power, has a way of cutting through any fear that you may have. I didn't feel, I don't know if you saw in the clip, I didn't feel, looking back at that now, I didn't feel afraid at all of the consequences, you know?  Well, let's, so there are two issues here. One is the issue itself, which is the the COVID inquiry whitewash, they should have just just given it a full title. And the second issue is police overreach. Maybe let's start at the first one. Why were you there that fateful day, Abi? That fateful day on the grassy knoll, which I mentioned in my article because it was a little grassy bank where all the the photographers and well, I've got a new collective noun for journalists. It's a shame of journalists. I don't include some people, including yourself. There are some people that stay out of that collective noun, but let's be honest, most journalists are a shame. If you compare them to Woodward and Bernstein, you know, those guys with the Watergate scandal, they dug and dug and dug and dug and dug and dug and got their sources, cross-referenced their sources. You know, you've read, you know the story. What a disgrace the press have been. Anyway, back to the day. So I basically, I went down that Tuesday morning, the 27th of June to meet my good friend Francis O'Neill. Who I believe you know, he was with his Yellow Boards. They do so much great work, they're grassroots activists, so they stand on roads, on roundabouts, and actually they're getting more and more traction, you know, with all sorts of issues, including the COVID-19 vaccines and the ULEZ, all that kind of, basically, yeah, government and overreach. And it's really, they do great work. So I went down to meet him at Dorland House where this COVID UK inquiry, can I just say before I forget, I saw you talk to Steve Bannon about it, it was, this was a, I wasn't really in any place to kind of talk to many people, but I just wanted to say that in answer to Steve's question about is it a whitewash, it's worse than that actually, it's, if you saw Matt Hancock talking on that, he was actually interviewed that day, the day I went down, he said that he thought the next time the lockdowns should be harder, faster, stricter. And that they didn't act quick enough and strict enough. So actually, everything we've said, many of us have said for the last three years, has come true, which is that they're going to, they're trying to corral people into this way of thinking. So I would just like to make that clear that in a weird way, it's worse than the Watergate scandal because so many of the crimes that have been committed as people are off the charts. I mean, I've seen various people I respect very much, including Brett Weinstein on his Dark Horse pod, say that the Nuremberg Code has been violated purely by using coercion and lack of consent, including informed consent. I mean, it's very important that we get these specifics right. And regardless of what is in, this is the point that I make in my article that I made very clear, including to the police, that what's in these gene therapies, these so-called vaccines, is sort of a side issue. The crime is the coercion. And when people say, but I wasn't forced, well, yeah, but you were told if you don't get them, then you lose your job, you can't travel, you lose your friends. Do you see what I mean? If you look up the definition of coercion, it includes blackmail, force, vilification, being told, well, you're a bad person, blah, blah, blah. So it's very important that people understand this. So that's one of the reasons I went down, was because I felt so strongly. Matt Hancock was in there and people, American viewers who may not know and people from around the world of course who watch this, he was the health secretary during the time, during the 2020 and part of 2021 when the vaccine rollout happened. He was cheering for it, he was fake crying going I can't believe it, we've got this miracle cure that we're going to coerce into the arms of the British people, which is a disgrace in itself. So I went down, met my fellow yellow boards, got into a chat with a few people who were kind of lurking by the entranceway. It's in Paddington, by the way, guys, if anyone, again, not from the UK. Paddington is a kind of main part of London, West London. So this building is kind of on a thoroughfare, on a main road. And then there's a little entranceway where it's kind of, it's like an official building where they were doing the inquiry and by the entrance there was a little table with three people and again in my article. My Substack article I mentioned this, there were two, I think two men and a woman and they had this like, I thought well they're on our side, you know because they were standing outside, you know how you just, you assume, they looked like the kind of people who would have been on all the marches that I went on and the woman said, I said I'll presume we're on the same side and the woman pointed over to the road where the yellow boards were and said, the anti-vaxxers are over there. Well, Peter, and viewers who know me, the red mist descended. And I just, and I turned, and I said to them, I thought, well, I'm not going to go into the MRNA. I'm not going to go into the scientific detail about what's in these things, because that's model, it's confused people, including myself by the way, so I thought no I'm going to go for the moral argument, which is that the coercion, the lack of informed or consent, any other consent, meant that it was violating the Nuremberg Code. So serious crimes have been committed against the globe, you know, in 90 countries around the world. So we're talking about millions and millions and millions of people just with this one action by world governments. And I mean, I've made, I said it slightly less, it was a bit shorter than that, just for, I'm just, I'm expanding because we're talking. And then, so I said that to them, and then turn around and I said, and that's not conjecture, that's fact. That's fact. So I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I'm anti-tyranny, I'm anti, you know, as you saw in the video, anti-democide, anti-lies, anti-coercion, you know, all those terrible Free speech, you know, being a free individual, all those kind of terrible things which some people are for.  But can I ask, because obviously the so-called, media on the right that supposedly stand up for free speech, all of that, who were silent for the vast majority and suddenly come out at the very end to say oh look we overspent a little bit on PPE, oh it's really naughty, or the government official got a contract for this, that's really naughty. I mean after you've gone through the last two and a half years of control. So they have, I don't think any of the mainstream media have even called this art as just a whitewash that will hide over everything, because even if you have government failings of spending or the control of cronyism, but it's much deeper than that. It's collusion with the drug companies.  Oh, yeah, completely. It's collusion. Is Hancock, the person who, because it seems so he's been thrown under the bus, kind of, although he'll get a lucrative media career. It's kind of, well, he did some things, but the rest of us, we carry on as normal. That seems to be how this will be the outcome. Well, this is the crazy thing, is that Matt Hancock is, I mean, it's a bit like, I have compared much to people's disgust, what happened to us, to people around the world to the early 1930s in Germany. I make that comparison with no shame, because it's the truth, or you could compare it to the Soviet Union in the first part of the 20th century, everything that was going on there, or name any other regime where they use force, intimidation, segregation, all those kinds of things. So you're talking about, I mean, the reason that Matt Hancock is the poster boy is because there's always gotta be a poster boy for the, what's the word, I was going to say scapegoat, but he's not, he's just a criminal. He's a criminal that happened to be part of a criminal establishment. And I'm very careful by the way to not just to target the Tories because Labour... In fact, everyone in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and the monarchy, you know, and I'm talking, by the way, if you'd spoken to me in 2019, Peter, I would have been like, oh, well, you know, it's really lovely because we've got the two-party system, you know, we've got the lovely Queen, we've got the whatever, blah, blah, blah. Wow, have my eyes been opened? You know, it's not about believing in every single conspiracy theory that anyone utters. You know, I'm always, I'm very particular about, this is why I'm so focused on this one issue, which is the last three years, the lockdowns, especially the vaccines in inverted commas, because I feel that such a terrible crime has been committed by, and also let's not forget the United States, you know, and again, I had nothing but love for the States. You know, I was going to to live there before I met my late husband. So I was going to, I got my visa. I got my O-1, which is a person of exceptional ability. I got that visa. I was going to go, man. I was going to go in 2008. It breaks my heart when I look at New York, what they did to Broadway, the Broadway actors. They made them, they made them get jabbed to like, well, otherwise you just can't work. So you see these wonder people like guys like Clifton Duncan, who's on, he said, well, I'm out then, I'm out. You, this is my body. This is my, this is, you know, my holy, sort of God-given body, get away with that stuff. So the United States, particularly the Democratic, Democrat states, honestly, I never thought I would see America go down that path, but holy shit, balls, guys. I know many people watching will agree with me, Americans. Canadians did the same thing. It is quite astounding the level, and I think people need to be aware of this, the level, the comparator between the 20th century, the first part of the 20th century, with all the dictators, with all the tyrants that there were around and that political sort of shadow that was cast, the similarities that there are with today. Trudeau, Biden, that his administration, in fact most of Europe, many countries, you know Germany and Austria, they were, I mean Austria went full fascist and so did Germany. They fell back into their, those tropes and maybe it's because there were so many marches and that it didn't go quite as, well I was going to say far as camps, but then Australia did have camps, They had lockdown camps in, is it Hope Springs? Or Hope... Do you remember there's a place in Australia, like a really lovely nature reserve, where people would have just been lovely to hang out and people I'm sure watching maybe have been there. I've seen videos of a woman trying to climb over the wall. She's climbing over a wall like The Great Escape, you know, from the Nazi camp. And then she's got those guards who like tug her back down. And then these people sitting there going, doing their video diaries, going, well, I'm sitting here, it's been my fourth day in isolation or whatever, in my, you know, and I'm like, what the hell, what the hell is this? And the same with a friend of mine, a well-known actor, he had to, well, he got the vaccines to go and work in America and he had to stay in a hotel. This is when he travelled for like... Maybe like a week or something, but like in a hotel room with like just a balcony. And honestly, to watch his videos, I was crying. I thought this is against everything that we, all of us, hold dear, you know, left or right. I mean, obviously the left have gone particularly AWOL, you know, but I've started to think, Peter, because you know that I was a small c conservative, I suppose libertarian, you know, so all my thought processes were kind of down that. But I'm starting to think that actually, you know, this is something bigger, but that definitely has, it has echoes of that communist, you know, sort of, what's the word, collectivization, I would say. It has, that's why I think we look at the left and go, oh yeah, the similarities are so obvious, you know, but I think party politics is over. I think we're coming into a new era now. Yeah, because obviously the uni-party is the term used over in the state for the Republican Democrats and it seems to be that's across the world and governments combined to control and coerce everyone. I think the worst one in Australia I came across was a family whose child was seriously ill with some condition, the ambulance took them to a specialist hospital, which was over the state border in Australia, and the parents were not allowed to go and see their child as it lay dying. And what level of evilness would make an exception, whatever, but that didn't matter. It was, no, no, we must follow the diktat.  Yeah, we must follow the, and that's the extraordinary thing, Peter. And actually, very sadly, I mean, I talk about this a lot on my podcast. Abi Daily. Well, I've addressed it so many times, I kind of, it's almost like it's a stock record, where you, the sad fact of the matter is that, and I think Graham Hancock may have said this, he's the guy that made the shows about possibly there being other civilisations that may have been around earlier than us, which is that the human race may suffer from amnesia. So you know how people are always saying, look back at history, don't forget history. You know all these wonderful quotes that float around about the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I don't know who said that, probably an American, but it's true, but the problem is we forget to be vigilant. What's happened now is that because of that, we're seeing the results of people not turning round and saying, enough. Like I said, I don't want to go into so much the party political thing but with the right, there's been a lot of times where I think to myself, is Roger Scruton enough to fight back, even though he's got great ideas about truth and beauty and goodness, which I totally hold dear, but is it enough for political change? Because at the moment we need more than that, as we've seen with Uxbridge last night. I think people are living in a bit of a cloud cuckoo land. And I say this in all seriousness, it's not going to cut it. With the Tories, we're like, oh, we're anti-ULEZ. Guys, this is the least of our problems and they vote in the Tories. Sorry, did you not see what the Tories have presided over the last three years and further back? I mean, like you said, Peter, though, you're right, it's a uni-party, it's Biden, it's this massive blob of sort of communo-fascist ideology, which is masquerading as, look at us, we're for the people, you know, yeah, we're just like introducing these things, these green things, you know, to save the planet and blah, blah. And of course, like you said, all the while it's for control. It's just to, because human beings, this is an anti-human ideology. Human beings are sort of like Stanley Johnson has said in his books, they're sort of an inconvenience, human beings, that's his view, rather than, you know, it's a gift from God, your life is a gift from God, you do with it. I was thinking about my grandpa, my wonderful Welsh gramps, Bob Roberts, his name was, and I was thinking, and he said, you know, your life is a gift, your talents are a gift. Use it. Use them. Use them as fully as you can. I'm not sure what he'd think about me being arrested. Actually, knowing him, he probably would be going, yeah, that's my girl. God love him, God rest him. But I think it's true. I think it's true. We have one life, so we may as well try and make it count. Not just for us, not just for now, but for the people that come after us. You're 100%. Can I ask you, the inquiry is a tick box exercise, we see through the BS, the mainstream media will play the game and play along. Before we get on to your campaign making swearing legal again, can I ask you about how do you perceive it? Because as you said, three, four years, four or five years ago, you would have thought actually a two-party system, and we have a monarchy, which is kind of good. Now, all that our institutions are good for society. They keep us, all that. And then that's all changed. So we have lost trust in many people, lost trust in the police. There's no longer policing by consent. It is policing by force. Absolute change. Biggest change in what, 200 years in policing. Zero trust in politicians. You see the voting rates so low and across the board. I mean, the even zero trust in our legal system, our courts anyway, have collapsed under so-called Covid. And now it takes you a year. The whole thing has gone to ground. And the Conservatives, what is there to conserve if everything has been burned to the ground? And how do you view that? I mean, we both we both live in the UK and we would like to believe that institutions are positive for society. We're the opposite opinion, as are many others.  Yeah, that's a good point. I've been thinking about this long and hard, actually. I remember having a conversation with Claire Fox. Hmm, how disappointing she is. Amazing, you know, how many communist revolutionaries there are who are far from revolutionary. In fact, if anything, they toe the line, the establishment line. I've met a few of them. I'm like, I actually said to one, I went, you should be ashamed of yourself that I'm one who's doing all the pushing back. So lots of roles have been reversed with this, which many of your viewers will be aware of, this weird inversion of things, as often happens in history. This isn't unusual. Well, it is, but it's not, if you know what I mean, because we have been here. I mean, there are countries that have suffered under tyrants and perverse ideologies, anti-human ideologies. But what was your question again? Oh, that's a two-party system. But all the institutions, we've lost this completely.  Oh, that's it. Yeah, you've reminded me about the Clare Fox chat. This was way back when I used to be on GB News. Mm, that's a whole, aren't they doing well, Peter? Oh, who'd have thought it? Anyway, that's a sight.  And your favourite journalist there calling you an anti-vaxxer on the day, but that's a whole separate issue. Your favourite journalist, Tom, what's his name,  Tom Harwood, yeah. Yes, exactly, who'd look very at home in a Hugo Boss suit and knee-high boots, and that's only at the weekends. That's from my article. Please read it, it's hilarious and sad at the same time. So in answer to your question, when Claire Fox and I had this chat when I was first on and she said that she thought the institutions could be saved from within. And I pushed back on this, I said, yeah, I don't think so, I don't think so, Claire. Because anyone that knows, this is what's so bizarre, Peter, anyone that knows anything, or claims to have read anything about anything, knows that the long march through the institutions that happened in Mao's China, happened in the Soviet Union, it happened in all these Marxist, let's use this paradigm, seeing as, because I know there will be maybe people watching going, yeah, but you've just said there's no such thing as left and right, but let's use this framework, is that the common purpose, this whole collectivization ideology has been creeping in and it's strangled everything like bindweed. So it's been happening for like maybe 30 years, maybe more than that actually. And the problem is, it's everywhere, it's woodworm in all the institutions, so like you said, everything's kind of collapsed. So I think, this is my personal view, is that no, the institutions should be rebuilt. And I don't mean build back better, I mean in the good sense that after the Enlightenment, you know, like Erasmus, you know, where we look around and say where are the good, where are the thinkers, the critical thinkers, I mean like myself, like yourself, can we have institutions that are the green shoots of, you know, for the next generation. So you have kids who go, oh, thank goodness for people like Abi Roberts and Peter Mcilvenna and various other people, because they saw the corruption, the evil that's in everything. Like you said, the judiciary, good grief. I was in the police cell thinking they could pin anything on me, these guys. That's a scary thought. I actually also thought, shall I fake a panic attack in the police cell. I was in there, by the way, viewers, for 17 hours. And I thought, and I'm claustrophobic as well, which didn't, I mean, I honestly, I've never prayed so hard in my life or sang so much to keep myself occupied. But I genuinely thought maybe I should fake a panic attack so that they'll let me out and I'll be with some medics. And then I thought, actually. Given what the medical profession have done the last three years, I would rather stay in the cell. Now that is, if that isn't a soundbite for 2023, I don't know what is. Abi Roberts would rather have stayed in a police cell with two Nigerians next door going, eh oh eh eh oh, like Nigerian Teletubbies, no comment, no comment bro, and smearing, you know, as I was told, because I smelt bleach and one of them had smeared his own excrement up the walls. I would rather have been in that cell, that damn cell, than be with doctors. So that's where we are, guys. But it's not just the UK, it's everywhere. So I hope that kind of answered your question, which is I've always believed in the, what the Russians did in Stalin's time, which is obviously you had many people who went along with it, the whisperers, they were called, you know, who whispered to, I may even have said this on one of our chats, that in Stalin's time, a lot of people just went along with it and used to grass up their neighbours and they were called the Whisperers. It just became this thing. So a lot of people go along with it and actually sort of get quite used to it. Oh, it's quite nice being locked at home. It's quite nice being forced, coerced into having injections. Oh, it's quite nice not being able to travel further than 15 minutes outside. You know what I mean? All these things, that's what happened under Stalin where everyone went, it's quite nice. Just only being able to have one cow, which the Kulaks, you know what I mean? All these little things people sort of started to think, well, maybe this is just our lot. We should rather than thinking, no, this is not our lot. This is not what life is for, what free life is for. But there were secrets of society. There were secret meetings and the catacombs, the true Christians, so not the Orthodox church that was hand in hand with Stalin. And they all met and they all prayed and they all, so children, educated children. So it was all happening, but sort of in parallel. Do you know what I mean? With the, so my view, and again, I said this to Lawrence Fox on a, God blimey, how the mighty have fallen. I said to him on a Twitter Spaces that I thought that we should start to have a parallel society. And he disagreed with that. Well, look what happened in Uxbridge last night. You know, I may be blonde, I may be a comedian, I may be silly and swear and the rest of it, But you know, a sharper mind you will not find talking about this kind of stuff. So you people can believe in their Labour versus Tory and their new parties and blah blah, but it's going to take a lot more than that. It's going to take a hell of a lot more. I mean, put it this way, Peter, I... Never thought I'd be arrested in this country for saying, fuck off, fuck you, whatever, standing with the police and the press, taking photographs of me outside a building where they were essentially lying about what's happened over the last three years. And that, but you know, like I said, I'm proud that I'm, it's something that, Um, yeah, that all, I didn't think I'd be in this position, but I'm I'm glad that I did it. I'm glad. OK, so one ask about the police side. It seems that we are now at the stage and part of this, a lot of this is a so-called conservative government. Laws being put in place that give the police absolute right to make up stuff, and it's this whole thing of offens,e of anything which may, possibly might do in the next 100 years to someone reading it in the far-flung galaxy, may find offense, then that is enough. It seemed as though that was, and it means taking, if you're wearing brown shoes and the policeman thinks, no, I don't like brown shoes, that's offensive. They can literally come up with anything, and it seemed to be what he said it to you, And it was so funny looking back at him saying, what, if I swear again? And you're thinking, if I swear again, I should swear. Well, also, you know, I spoke to an ex-policeman about this, who's on our side, by the way, very much on our side. So he was very high up in the police. And I spoke to a couple of people actually about, and obviously I can't reveal too much to you about things which may or may not happen with the process, but he said that if swearing was illegal, then I would have been arrested the first time. He said that's a point of that. And also, before anyone takes you by the arm, you know, you see the two, I don't know if it's in the clip, but the two policewomen, they really grip hold of me, took my arms. They're meant to say, We're going to now put our hands on you and take you, this is in the old days, the old school, They had to take you through everything. So you're seeing people that have been trained in a police college that is riddled with common purpose. I'm going to go back to that phrase, common purpose, look it up, Peter, you know what I'm talking about. The communitarian, this wonderful idea that everyone, hey, as long as everyone is abiding by this ideology, then it's okay for you to act beyond your authority. That's part of the common purpose thing, which is, by the way, a Marxist organisation. It was set up many years ago by the daughter of a Marxist called Julia Middleton. So look it up. It's all true. Whether that is running in tandem or not with what we're talking about, the global tyranny is kind of another matter. It's almost too coincidental that it's all kind of coming together. This whole offence thing, and in fact, the Public Order Act 1986 should really have been, I mean, it shouldn't even be there. And I'm very worried, Peter, about this online offence, online harms bill. There's a lot of stuff which will be used, stuff maybe we're seeing now in the media being used about people saying certain things, doing certain things, and Oh, in which case, then let's have let's have harsher laws. So I would say.  But on the online city bill, so we've had Signal boss has said they will have to pull out because they do not give back doors to anyone. Wikipedia have said they will have to shut down their operation in the UK. I know Telegram have talked about, Apple have said it is. I mean, everyone is saying this is overreach to the nth degree. And yet the government don't give a damn. so-called conservative government think this is wonderful, let's shut everyone up. Yes, exactly. The so-called conservative. I mean, this is what's weird though is I think we have to... We have to stop thinking in terms of, I'm afraid to say, in terms of Conservative and Labour, because whatever's taken over both those parties and everyone else in the House of Commons, let's be honest, all of them, is a dark force, is a dark ideological force. So we're in a historical, we are in a first, in Britain, in the sense that I mean, I again never thought I'd be sitting here saying that the two-party system, it's I mean, our democratic system is broken. It's completely broken. It's completely, it's been trashed, it's been stamped on and the people of this country need to wake up and realise that, you know, if you want to go to I mean, I heard someone the other day say, well, maybe China, a Chinese system wouldn't be that bad. Really? Really? Yeah. Brilliant. How fantastic. I mean, that's the level. People will go, well, even if we have to live in a tiny flat, a tiny room, you know, with our tokens, you know, with our, what's it? Compliance tokens, I call them. Yeah. All those things. And our currency, and have you been well behaved, all that. People, I'm sorry, Peter, but a lot of people, like I've said in history, will go along with it. They'll go, well, what's the worst that can happen? At least I'll get my food and I'll get my, because they don't prize freedom. They don't prize the idea. And when I say freedom, I don't mean freedom, like it's this weird sort of slogan. I mean the free soul, the spirit, The idea that freedom is not just about a word, it's about you and the extension of you around you. So including things that come out of your mouth, your utterances, all that is sacred. And including swearing, by the way. And I know people say, I know there might be some Christians watching saying, how could you be a Christian? Well, I am, I've got my lovely cross on, which by the way, they made me take off in the police station. I said to them, what am I going to do, stab myself in the eye with it? It's a cross for heaven's sake. Even though I did hear people down the other cells say we need to pray so they were let out. Hmm. That's interesting, Peter.  Look, the thing... And there's so much we could cover, and I won't keep you all day. But I want to, in, you're arrested. I mean, if you are, you've sworn, and that is illegal, and you can be arrested, something like that should be, you would think, well, you get taken down the station, you get like a 50 pound, 100 pound fine, I don't know what. But you were actually kept, probably because they thought you were a danger to society? What is the benefit of keeping you locked in a cell instead of just processing you in 30 minutes and then letting you go? Yeah, well, good question. And when I went down there, they told me that I, and again, it's in the article, they told me, the solicitor on the phone said, they'd agreed, they'd suggested, they'd said that this is the police, so they'd give me a £90 fine, which I could either pay in 21 days or take it to court. So like, you know, dispute it and take it to court. So that was, I was told by the solicitor, she said, you'll be out in the afternoon. That was the first phone call. Hours later, when I started to get the feeling that something wasn't quite right, because I was getting, being told different things by the police who were opening the little cell door where they put the food and water in, I thought, hang on a minute, they're gonna try and keep me in for 24 hours. And according to Francis, who came down to the station, bless him, and stayed there for hours, Francis O'Neill. And I didn't know that he was there until someone had said, by the way, I think there's a friend of yours out there. He's been waiting, I was like, oh my God. Apparently, a separate team got involved, a kind of protest team. But you know what, when I was in there, one of the coppers, and again, this is in the article, said, we're conflicted about letting you go because we don't know who's gonna replace you. And as I was leaving, one of the other police women who interviewed me said, we've talked to all the staff here, and they say you're by far the nicest criminal that they've ever met. They probably wanted to keep you in. Because you would lighten up the mood. They did. Well, I was just there on my plastic mat reading a book. I had, because one of the lovely police, well, I say lovely, he was really, he didn't want to shut the door, the cell door. He didn't want to shut it. And he said, I don't know why you're in here. He said, you know, he whispered. And then he took me out and he, I chose a couple of books to read. So I was reading, I was there with my Bernard Cornwall. Which I only know about because James Delingpole mentioned it on his, mentioned it on London Calling.  Yeah, it must be good.  And then another book. And I was just there, you know, with my cups of tea, you know, nibbling on a little biscuit. And I was just like there, you know, do praying, singing, thinking, this too shall pass. You know, I'm thinking, I was thinking to myself, you're not Solzhenitsyn. You're not, you're not Nelson Mandela. You're not, You know, many, you know, Artur Pawlowski, the lovely Polish priest who, by the way, can I just quickly say, he needs our help. His trial in Canada is, the verdict is going to be on August the 9th. So this man, you know, who told, who they, the police interrupted an Easter service and he told them they were Nazis and the Gestapo, quite rightly. He then made a speech at to the truckers rally in 2022. He was then put in prison for 51 days. In prison. So if he gets found guilty, this is the Canada, the wonderful Canada under Trudeau, he'll get 10 years, 10 years. So to round this up, it was 17 hours, but it was not in comparison to many people many people who have come before me, including Artur, Artur Palowski, sorry any Polish people if I'm getting the pronunciation wrong. God love him. He's one of my true heroes of this time, because he was prepared to say, no, no, I'm not gonna live in a country. I'm not going to give away my freedom to you and the freedom of my congregation, my flock. He said, as a shepherd, he said, it's my duty to protect my flock. And I'm like, oh my goodness, you know? Maybe Calvin Robinson could take a few notes. I told you, you weren't going to get, Peter knows me, that I have to slip in the odd, well, it's true, come on, enough of the tweed and the baubles. What about the people? There are no restrictions, Abi. I don't think we've ever edited, literally, and I say this, start with you. I think the only, we removed one video, but with someone who just went crazy and started just going at us, that was only one. Piers Corbyn we removed because he couldn't use a camera and the internet. So it was just... Oh bless Piers It was embarrassing. But I don't think we've ever actually edited or removed anything. So what's the point? You want the guest on, you want them to talk because you want them to speak. And I am making, I think I'm making, well, you know, I'm making a point. And this is something I've, don't forget, you know, I've, I've had a journey over the last three years. I've contemplate and, and wrestle, struggle with stuff and ideas and, and my faith, and all these kind of things. And all I would say is that, beware the baubles. It's become like my catchphrase in my, on my site with my Abi Daily family, and on Twitter, beware the baubles. And what I mean by that is, the Holy Grail was not a jewel-encrusted chalice. It was a simple wooden cup, and in that cup was the truth.  And that's all you need to know.  100%. Abi, just to finish, just last thought, does this mean that if I go outside now, doing the school run, and I happen to swear, because, I don't know, for whatever reason, a colleague comes to me and I say, holy shit, what was that? Is that now suddenly, I can now be arrested or something over here? Or is it simply that the police now have the power to use and abuse whoever they want to at will? I think it's the latter, you're right. I'm not sure, it's not the, I mean the swear word is part of it, but as Artur Pawlowski says, that when he was living under Soviet, it is in Poland, when the Soviets were around, is that the police could, if they could choose a man, so anyone, and fine something on them. That's what the police motto was in Poland at that time. So, you know, you look around, pick anyone in the street and you'd find they might have a parking fine, they might've had a row with a neighbour a few years ago, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, all these things. And the point is, they could just go, Right, you're coming down with us. So the swearing was sort of incidental to the bigger picture. So you're right that it is the police powers and because they don't know. I mean, the guys at the police desk, they didn't even know what coercion meant. I had to explain to them. I said, don't tell me this is in the police, you know, in full view of all the, everyone working there. I said, don't tell me that there aren't people in this room who were thinking, maybe something might have gone wrong with the vaccines or I might have been harmed. And then the guy behind the desk said, I wasn't forced, I wanted to go on holiday to Spain. So this is the kind of people, this is the kind of, they need to go back to, the rule, what the principles of law actually. So again, we're back to starting new institutions, Peter. We're sort of back to this idea that... That there needs to be a sort of non-violent, philosophical revolution needs to happen. Like a new enlightenment, actually. Completely. We'll finish, Abi Daily, it's in the name, it is Abi every day, tell us what people can find. How do they find it, and how can they actually listen? Yeah, well, so it's abiroberts.substack.com. you've got it under my name there. You just go to that address, you then you can listen for free. You can go on, I don't have any paywall. You can subscribe, you can if you want to donate, chuck in a few quid. I've got people who do that as well. So there's like, you'll see that I did it free for a year, and then there was pledges. So people pledged. Quite a few people went, I want to pledge. So then you switch the toggle on and then it changes to this idea that people can say. So basically, what I'm saying is, everyone's welcome to the Substack family, to Abi Daily family. I've also got some gigs coming up. I wasn't going to because I had a bit of problems with some trolls. So I was a bit like I freaked out, but I thought they're not going to win, you damn bastards, you wankers. So I have got gigs coming up at the next week. I'm doing Newport with Katie Hopkins on Friday the 28th. Then I've got Southampton 29th with a great bill with Alastair Williams. Then I've got various things coming up. Actually, that's the first bit. People will be hearing this on Monday going, we didn't think you were doing any live gigs. Well, fuck you because I am. I don't care if people want to come along and go, you're whatever, I don't know, you're a loon. I am. Yeah, we did a few days before, but it's going out on Monday, the 24th? On Monday the 24th. So everyone will get it. Make sure, and for the viewers, listeners, make sure and follow Abi on her Twitter or Substack. Everything will be up there. And Abi, you're one of the fun people I've gotten over the last few years. It's been three years of meeting a whole new set of people and losing a whole load of people as well. Losing a whole load of, yes.  I know.  To the baubles. Oh, but I love what you do and thank you so much for joining us, Abi, and sharing your crazy experiences getting locked up. It's my pleasure. One last thing before we clock off is We the People, the book that I'm, and this goes back to the COVID inquiry, Whitewash. We the People is an e-book that I released at the end of last year with lots of stories that were written to me about lockdowns, about jab injuries, et cetera, et cetera. And I'm redoing that book. So it's going to to be really going to be like a e-pub, no, published book. And there will probably be hard copies. And there'll be a launch and an audio version. So with Bob Moran's cartoons. So it's going to be laid out. And I'm going to give it to any person I meet. I was going to say MP. What good would that do? But basically, so people can understand the true horror of what's gone on. And if that's my contribution along with being arrested, Like I said, that's fine by me, you know, and I'll try and keep people laughing as well. You always do. I look forward to having that launch.  Yeah, bless you. Come to the launch for sure. Oh, I'm coming anyway, so just tell me where it is. Exactly. Just gate crash.  I'll be there.  All the best. All the best people gate crash. I'll be there. Abi, thanks so much for your time today. Cheers. Not a problem. God bless you all.

There is systemic racism in this country, but it's not the kind you think it is. Why you're hated by the system. Why the communists targeted and hated the Kulaks in the Soviet Union. The AC pin. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is systemic racism in this country, but it's not the kind you think it is. Why you're hated by the system. Why the communists targeted and hated the Kulaks in the Soviet Union. The AC pin. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Joe Biden and other top administration officials regularly make the ridiculous claim that "white supremacy" is the primary domestic threat to the United States. If the claim is obviously false, why do powerful progressives continue to make it? Charles Haywood of the Worthy House joins me to discuss. - Follow on: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-auron-macintyre-show/id1657770114 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S6z4LBs8Fi7COupy7YYuM?si=4d9662cb34d148af Substack: https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre Gab: https://gab.com/AuronMacIntyre YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/c/AuronMacIntyre Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390155 Odysee: https://odysee.com/@AuronMacIntyre:f

The first agricultural revolution worthy of its name in terms of relative suddenty was not an event of the neolithic. It took place in the 16th century and would gradually develop through a series of sub-revolutions until the end of the 1940s, when it was replaced. The interregnum of the first and the second revolution, when the old was dying and the new could not be born, when mechanisation was to become motorisation, would be a period of time that included the Wall Street Crash, and the two world wars. Though often overlooked, all that destruction was foretold by another cluster of events. The First World Crisis of Agricultural Overproduction of 1890. Today we investigate if there were perhaps some well aware of this or if it was just the lack of agency of the M-C-M' circuit. As the spoiler in the title suggests, we will point a finger at the historical block which has been occupying the newspaper all over the world for the last year. We will interpret the dream of the Pharaoh in Genesis 41 and we will investigate the most secret cabinet of the Weimar.

They know they screwed up with the Trump raid and they're in a panic now. How to deal with racial tensions. The true goals of the Left. The Kulaks. How to survive a saltwater crocodile.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

They know they screwed up with the Trump raid and they're in a panic now. How to deal with racial tensions. The true goals of the Left. The Kulaks. How to survive a saltwater crocodile.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jordan B Peterson. Live Not By Lies. Live Not By Lies | Rod Dreher & Dr Jordan B Peterson https://youtu.be/i1JuWVeJS-E 303,804 views Jul 7, 2022 Jordan B Peterson 5.29M subscribers Rod Dreher is a senior writer and editor for 'The American Conservative.' He is the author of three New York Times bestsellers: 'Live Not By Lies,' 'The Benedict Option,' and 'The Little Way of Ruthie Leming,' as well as the books 'Crunchy Cons' and 'How Dante Can Save Your Life.' In this episode, Rod Dreher and I discuss his latest book, 'Live Not By Lies,' the continuous emergence of Communism in the West, ideology as a substitute for religion, the importance of courage, and more. Thanks for watching. —Links— Follow Rod Dreher on Twitter: https://twitter.com/roddreher Read Rod Dreher's articles: https://www.theamericanconservative.c... Order Rod Dreher's books, 'Live Note By Lies', and others on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Rod-Dreher/e/B.... —Chapters— [0:00] Intro [1:25] Live Not By Lies [2:32] A Story from Communist Czechoslovakia [4:55] Our Old Idea of New Totalitarianism [9:13] Czeslaw Miłosz and "The Captive Mind" [12:26] The Appeal of Communism [14:50] The Weaponizing of Original Sin [18:36] Applying the Story of the Kulaks [22:43] The Emergence of Woke Capitalism [27:37] The Line Between Good and Evil [29:48] Solzhenitsyn's Rules for Responsible Conduct [31:31] Scapegoating and False Morality [37:28] The Fragility of American Elites [42:06] Vaclav Havel, The Myth of the Green Grocer [48:34] Fighting for the Right to Be Unhappy [56:37] Ideology as Substitute for Religion [1:00:56] Heroism as Anti-Ideology [1:09:52] Preparing for Persecution [1:12:33] A Message from the Church to Men [1:13:39] Courage [1:18:04] Rod Dreher, "Live Not By Lies" [1:20:07] Jordan Peterson's Daily Wire+ Deal [1:21:15] Daily Wire+ Intro [1:21:54] History of Rod Dreher's Religious Belief [1:27:08] Sexuality as the Last Temptation [1:32:45] Kierkegaard's Three Stages of Life [1:34:45] Journey Through Catholicism [1:36:36] Becoming an Orthodox Christian [1:45:00] A Respite from the Political [1:48:11] The Purpose of Prayer [1:50:23] The Jesus Prayer [1:54:36] Closing Comments #roddreher #livenotbylies #aleksandrsolzhenitsyn #jordanpeterson #communism #christianity // SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL // Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co... Donations: https://jordanbpeterson.com/donate // COURSES // Discovering Personality: https://jordanbpeterson.com/personality Self Authoring Suite: https://selfauthoring.com Understand Myself (personality test): https://understandmyself.com // BOOKS // Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: https://jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-... Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: https://jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m... // LINKS // Website: https://jordanbpeterson.com Events: https://jordanbpeterson.com/events Blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/blog Podcast: https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcast // SOCIAL // Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson Instagram: https://instagram.com/jordan.b.peterson Facebook: https://facebook.com/drjordanpeterson Telegram: https://t.me/DrJordanPeterson All socials: https://linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson #JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus #Psychology #RodDreher #LiveNotByLies #Communism #Totalitarianism #Christianity   About the book- Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents by Rod Dreher   The New York Times bestselling author of The Benedict Option draws on the wisdom of Christian survivors of Soviet persecution to warn American Christians of approaching dangers. For years, émigrés from the former Soviet bloc have been telling Rod Dreher they see telltale signs of "soft" totalitarianism cropping up in America--something more Brave New World than Nineteen Eighty-Four. Identity politics are beginning to encroach on every aspect of life. Civil liberties are increasingly seen as a threat to "safety". Progressives marginalize conservative, traditional Christians, and other dissenters. Technology and consumerism hasten the possibility of a corporate surveillance state. And the pandemic, having put millions out of work, leaves our country especially vulnerable to demagogic manipulation. In Live Not By Lies, Dreher amplifies the alarm sounded by the brave men and women who fought totalitarianism. He explains how the totalitarianism facing us today is based less on overt violence and more on psychological manipulation. He tells the stories of modern-day dissidents--clergy, laity, martyrs, and confessors from the Soviet Union and the captive nations of Europe--who offer practical advice for how to identify and resist totalitarianism in our time. Following the model offered by a prophetic World War II-era pastor who prepared believers in his Eastern European to endure the coming of communism, Live Not By Lies teaches American Christians a method for resistance:   •  SEE: Acknowledge the reality of the situation.   •  JUDGE: Assess reality in the light of what we as Christians know to be true.   •  ACT: Take action to protect truth. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously said that one of the biggest mistakes people make is assuming totalitarianism can't happen in their country. Many American Christians are making that mistake today, sleepwalking through the erosion of our freedoms. Live Not By Lies will wake them and equip them for the long resistance. Purchase the book at your favorite book seller or- https://www.amazon.com/Live-Not-Lies-Christian-Dissidents/dp/B0892SPHYG/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=   HELP ACU SPREAD THE WORD!   Ways to subscribe to the American Conservative University Podcast Click here to subscribe via Apple Podcasts Click here to subscribe via RSS You can also subscribe via Stitcher FM Player Podcast Addict Tune-in Podcasts Pandora Look us up on Amazon Prime   If you like this episode head on over to Apple Podcasts and kindly leave us a rating, a review and subscribe! People find us through our good reviews.   FEEDBACK- Thanks to Rachel Layton for recommending this episode. Send ACU your favorites at- Email us at americanconservativeuniversity@americanconservativeuniversity.com  You can ask your questions, make comments, submit ideas for shows and lots more. Let your voice be heard.

Rod Dreher is a senior writer and editor for 'The American Conservative.' He is the author of three New York Times bestsellers: 'Live Not By Lies,' 'The Benedict Option,' and 'The Little Way of Ruthie Leming,' as well as the books 'Crunchy Cons' and 'How Dante Can Save Your Life.' In this episode, Rod Dreher and I discuss his latest book, 'Live Not By Lies,' the continuous emergence of Communism in the West, ideology as a substitute for religion, the importance of courage, and more. Thanks for watching. —Links— Follow Rod Dreher on Twitter: https://twitter.com/roddreher Read Rod Dreher's articles: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/rod-dreher/ Order Rod Dreher's books, 'Live Note By Lies', and others on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Rod-Dreher/e/B00JV2IX3O%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share. —Chapters—[0:00] Intro [1:25] Live Not By Lies [2:32] A Story from Communist Czechoslovakia [4:55] Our Old Idea of New Totalitarianism [9:13] Czeslaw Miłosz and "The Captive Mind" [12:26] The Appeal of Communism [14:50] The Weaponizing of Original Sin [18:36] Applying the Story of the Kulaks [22:43] The Emergence of Woke Capitalism [27:37] The Line Between Good and Evil [29:48] Solzhenitsyn's Rules for Responsible Conduct [31:31] Scapegoating and False Morality [37:28] The Fragility of American Elites [42:06] Vaclav Havel, The Myth of the Green Grocer [48:34] Fighting for the Right to Be Unhappy [56:37] Ideology as Substitute for Religion [1:00:56] Heroism as Anti-Ideology [1:09:52] Preparing for Persecution [1:12:33] A Message from the Church to Men [1:13:39] Courage [1:18:04] Rod Dreher, "Live Not By Lies" [1:20:07] Jordan Peterson's Daily Wire+ Deal [1:21:15] Daily Wire+ Intro [1:21:54] History of Rod Dreher's Religious Belief [1:27:08] Sexuality as the Last Temptation [1:32:45] Kierkegaard's Three Stages of Life [1:34:45] Journey Through Catholicism [1:36:36] Becoming an Orthodox Christian [1:45:00] A Respite from the Political [1:48:11] The Purpose of Prayer [1:50:23] The Jesus Prayer [1:54:36] Closing Comments #roddreher #livenotbylies #aleksandrsolzhenitsyn #jordanpeterson #communism #christianity // SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL // Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co... Donations: https://jordanbpeterson.com/donate // COURSES // Discovering Personality: https://jordanbpeterson.com/personality Self Authoring Suite: https://selfauthoring.com Understand Myself (personality test): https://understandmyself.com // BOOKS // Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: https://jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-... Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: https://jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m... // LINKS // Website: https://jordanbpeterson.com Events: https://jordanbpeterson.com/events Blog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/blog Podcast: https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcast // SOCIAL // Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson Instagram: https://instagram.com/jordan.b.peterson Facebook: https://facebook.com/drjordanpeterson Telegram: https://t.me/DrJordanPeterson All socials: https://linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rod Dreher is a senior writer and editor for 'The American Conservative.' He is the author of three New York Times bestsellers: 'Live Not By Lies,' 'The Benedict Option,' and 'The Little Way of Ruthie Leming,' as well as the books 'Crunchy Cons' and 'How Dante Can Save Your Life.'In this episode, Rod Dreher and I discuss his latest book, 'Live Not By Lies,' the continuous emergence of Communism in the West, ideology as a substitute for religion, the importance of courage, and more. Thanks for watching.—Links—Follow Rod Dreher on Twitter: https://twitter.com/roddreherRead Rod Dreher's articles: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/rod-dreher/Order Rod Dreher's books, 'Live Note By Lies', and others on Amazon:https://www.amazon.com/Rod-Dreher/e/B00JV2IX3O%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share.—Chapters—[0:00] Intro[1:25] Live Not By Lies[2:32] A Story from Communist Czechoslovakia[4:55] Our Old Idea of New Totalitarianism[9:13] Czeslaw Miłosz and "The Captive Mind"[12:26] The Appeal of Communism[14:50] The Weaponizing of Original Sin[18:36] Applying the Story of the Kulaks[22:43] The Emergence of Woke Capitalism[27:37] The Line Between Good and Evil[29:48] Solzhenitsyn's Rules for Responsible Conduct[31:31] Scapegoating and False Morality[37:28] The Fragility of American Elites[42:06] Vaclav Havel, The Myth of the Green Grocer[48:34] Fighting for the Right to Be Unhappy[56:37] Ideology as Substitute for Religion[1:00:56] Heroism as Anti-Ideology[1:09:52] Preparing for Persecution[1:12:33] A Message from the Church to Men[1:13:39] Courage[1:18:04] Rod Dreher, "Live Not By Lies"[1:20:07] Jordan Peterson's Daily Wire+ Deal[1:21:15] Daily Wire+ Intro[1:21:54] History of Rod Dreher's Religious Belief[1:27:08] Sexuality as the Last Temptation[1:32:45] Kierkegaard's Three Stages of Life[1:34:45] Journey Through Catholicism[1:36:36] Becoming an Orthodox Christian[1:45:00] A Respite from the Political[1:48:11] The Purpose of Prayer[1:50:23] The Jesus Prayer[1:54:36] Closing Comments#roddreher #livenotbylies #aleksandrsolzhenitsyn #jordanpeterson #communism #christianity// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co...Donations: https://jordanbpeterson.com/donate// COURSES //Discovering Personality: https://jordanbpeterson.com/personalitySelf Authoring Suite: https://selfauthoring.comUnderstand Myself (personality test): https://understandmyself.com// BOOKS //Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: https://jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: https://jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: https://jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...// LINKS //Website: https://jordanbpeterson.comEvents: https://jordanbpeterson.com/eventsBlog: https://jordanbpeterson.com/blogPodcast: https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcast// SOCIAL //Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpetersonInstagram: https://instagram.com/jordan.b.petersonFacebook: https://facebook.com/drjordanpetersonTelegram: https://t.me/DrJordanPetersonAll socials: https://linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How Stalin starved Ukraine in the 1930s and how Putin is doing it now.We're talking about the "Terror-Famine" created by Soviet farm policy in the 1930s which killed millions of people in Ukraine. If you like our content please become a patron and get our premium episodes, plus our public episodes, all ad-free! The Soviet Union had problems with food production throughout its existence. From the outset in 1917, Lenin was forced with a farm revolt in the Penza province that resulted in his infamous "hanging order" to execute 100 kulaks. We explain what a kulak is, how that class of people came to be, and how Stalin tried to exterminate them in the 1930s. 1 After Lenin's death in the early 1920s, it was Trotsky or Stalin for who would succeed him. Trotsky had the army, but Stalin had everyone else, and the fate of millions were sealed when Stalin rose to power. Stalin's first five year plan involved the collectivization of farmland, and it was thought that machinery could increase production with less labor, and so the kulaks were sent to labor camps and the women of farming villages left to work the fields, with disastrous results. On the low end, 3 to 5 million Ukrainians starved to death. Another 1.5 million Kazakhs. More in the northern Caucasus. And those not killed by the famine were also targets in Stalin's purges a few years later. Kherson, Odessa, and Mariupol: all cities in the news today with Russia's current invasion. They're grain ports in the country known as the bread basket of Europe, and Ukraine is still fighting for them 100 years later. Famines in 1918 may be more aptly described as food terrorism today, as Putin's destruction of grain ports could cause a global food crisis. Will we have mass migrations in response to mass hunger in Europe in 2022 if grain supplies run low? Little was written of the famines in the west, except by journalists like Welshman Gareth Jones, who kept diaries of his travels through Soviet territory. Sadly, Jones' legacy was tarnished by western journalists complicit with the Stalin regime such as Walter Duranty of the New York Times, who admitted in private that millions were dying of hunger, but downplayed that fact in the the paper of record. He was given a Pulitzer and "perks" from the Soviets for his efforts, Gareth Jones was given three fatal gunshot wounds while reporting on the Japanese invasion of Mongolia in 1935 with a man we now know to have been with the NKVD: the precursor to the KGB. 2 The famine was also documented in the photos of people living in 1930s Soviet territory such as Alexander Wienerberger and James Abbe. A particularly striking photo of Wienerberger's was one of a Soviet Health Minister's summer palace in Crimea, in which he lived while millions of people below his stately grounds were falling dead in the streets from starvation. Not very comrade-like... 3, 4 1. Lenin's Hanging Order for the Kulaks (1918). Alpha History. ⇤2. Neil Prior. Journalist Gareth Jones' 1935 Murder Examined by BBC Four. BBC, July 2012. ⇤3. 'A Gift To Posterity': Four Men Who Risked The Wrath Of Stalin To Photograph The Holodomor. Radio Free Europe. May 2021. ⇤4. Alexander Wienerberger. Soviet Health Commissar's Summer Residence in Crimea. The Holodomor Research and Education Consortium. ⇤

Mark Twain once said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." Join Whitney to discuss the weaponization of privilege, Stalin and the Kulaks, and its application to our culture today.

Comparing today's "Woke" agenda to Mao's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's genocide of the literate, the USSR's genocide of the Kulaks and Castro's block watch snitches.  

The People's School for Marxist-Leninist Studies presents the second part of a three-part series over the book "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny. This class specifically highlights the ideological differences between Bukharin, Trotsky, and Stalin in the early years of the Soviet Union. We hope you learn something new! Interested in attending a class? Email info@psmls.org for more information Literature Used In This Class: Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Roger Keeran and Thoms Kenny https://valleysunderground.files.word... Recommended Literature: The Communist Party A Manual on Organization by J. Peters (1935) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/j-pet... Foundations of Leninism by J.V. Stalin (1924) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jv-st... Guidelines on the Organizational Structure of Communist Parties, on the Methods and Content of their Work by the Third Congress of the Communist International (1921) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/third... Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder by V.I. Lenin (1920) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/vi-le... The New Economic Policy by V.I. Lenin (1921) https://www.marxists.org/archive/leni... Recommended Viewing: Mission to Moscow by Michael Curtiz (1943) PSMLS Website: http://peoplesschool.org/contact/ Party of Communists USA Website https://partyofcommunistsusa.org/about/ Timecode Key: (Q&A) = Question & Answer / Response 0:00 Introduction 0:31 Reading 1 5:06 Context of the NEP 6:16 Ideological seeds? (Q&A) 7:33 Kulaks? (Q&A) 9:29 Factionalism? (Q&A) 12:26 Reading 2 15:55 Lenin on the NEP? (Q&A) 19:02 Trotsky's role (Q&A) 20:11 Reading 3 32:11 Softening of class struggle 32:36 People change roles 34:14 Trotsky's Amalgams 35:00 Foster's Russia in 1924 35:26 Short vs. Long Term NEP 36:44 Marxism & the National Question 37:13 Other CPSU Leaders? (Q&A) 39:19 The Kulak Issue 40:25 China & Concluding Remarks

Stalin had big plans for revolutionizing  the Soviet Union and nowhere where those plans bigger than Ukraine.  90% percent of the population in the republic were small time farmers who worked the same plots of land their ancestors always had. He wanted to dispossess all of them and force everyone into large industrial plantations where they would become employees of the state. Convinced that that the "fascist" Western democracies were itching to invade, he wanted to take the agrarian Soviet Union and turn it into an industrial superpower capable defeating the "capitalist encirclement" in just 5 years. However, to do that he needed money... lots of money and the Soviet Union would have to export grain... lots and lots of grain to get it.  But what if his own people didn't have enough to eat? In that case the industrialized "proletarian" regions would be fed and the backward agricultural ones would have to do without. He reasoned that to create this new bulwark of Socialism the peasants would have to be "sacrificed." Lenin had said that peasants "need to do a little starving" now and then and this would be no exception. The "Worker's Paradise" had no use for these vestiges of the feudal past and if some of these were lost it wouldn't be the worst thing in the  world. But he also saw Ukraine as a hotbed of "counterrevolutionaries," "kulaks," "wreckers," "Petliurists," and about a dozen other hidden "class enemies." They were all threats to Soviet power and had connections to "fascist" Western democracies. These were people that needed to be taught a lesson they wouldn't soon forget. What followed would be one of the darkest man made catastrophes on Earth but it would happen systematically, in deliberate stages. Stalin would later confess to Churchill that he had to "destroy 10 million." It would be known as the "Holodomor" or "death by hunger." It doomed the population of Ukraine to a slow, lingering death. Ultimately, 13% of the population perished in less than two years. Nonetheless, a sympathetic  New York Times reporter from the time would say "you have to break  a few eggs to make an omelet."  Do the ends always justify the means? Today, the United States, along with 18 other countries officially recognize it as a genocide. Unsurprisingly, Putin's Russia is not one of them. They do not teach it in schools and still deny it ever occurred. If you want to know why every day people would be willing to fight to the death in the streets of Kiev to repel a Russian invader, look no further.

The Soviet dekulakisation campaign began when Joseph Stalin announced the ‘liquidation of the kulaks as a ...

Tomorrow's news today from the legendary Rob Smith! The Good Doctor did WHAT!?!?!, Loudon Walkout, Noam "Starve the Kulaks" Chomsky, and Tim "The Terminator" Scott are some of our topics today. Tune in to find out! Don't forget to LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, COMMENT, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF!

Enjoy this PSMLS Clip! This is derived from the 2019 class "Socialism Betrayed (pt. 1/3)." We hope this clip clarifies the brutal realities that the kulaks inflicted upon the working class in the Soviet Union. Kulak and kulak-type elements always have been, and always will be enemies of the working-class movement. As comrade Lenin said: "Ruthless suppression of the kulaks, those bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who batten on famine." Enjoy! Interested in attending classes? Email info@psmls.org for more information Watch the Full Class: https://youtu.be/hC1kPOCSEEs Recommended Literature: Fraud, Famine, and Fascism by Douglas Tottle (1987) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/dougl... Why Communism? Plain Talks on Vital Problems by Moissaye J. Olgin (1934) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/moiss... https://www.marxists.org/archive/olgi... What Is Marxism? by Emile Burns (1939) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/emile... https://www.marxists.org/archive/burn... The Communist Party A Manual on Organization by J. Peters (1935) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/j-pet... Mastering Bolshevism by J.V. Stalin (1937) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/josep... Foundations of Leninism by J.V. Stalin (1924) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jv-st... PSMLS Website: http://peoplesschool.org/contact/ Party of Communists USA Website: https://partyofcommunistsusa.org/about/

politics & humor

Please enjoy the second and final part of a two-part PSMLS series on comrade Joseph Stalin's outstanding 1937 publication titled Mastering Bolshevism. This pamphlet goes into detail about how to build and strengthen Party cadre. It is a breath of fresh air when compared to the infectious individualism of our time. Interested in attending a class? Email info@psmls.org for more information Literature Used In This Class: Mastering Bolshevism by J.V. Stalin (1937) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/josep... http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MB37.html Recommended Literature: Foundations of Leninism by J.V. Stalin (1924) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jv-st... Dizzy with Success by J.V. Stalin (1930) https://www.marxists.org/reference/ar... Felix Dzerzhinsky: A Biography (several authors) (1988) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/rozal... Concerning Questions of Agrarian Policy in the U.S.S.R. by J.V. Stalin https://www.marxists.org/reference/ar... Concerning the Policy of Eliminating of the Kulaks as a Class by J.V. Stalin https://www.marxists.org/reference/ar... Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder by V.I. Lenin (1920) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/vi-le... Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens (1994) https://stalinsocietypk.files.wordpre... Blood Lies by Grover Furr (2014) http://www.readmarxeveryday.org/blood... The Communist Manifesto by Marx & Engels (1848) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/karl-... Ending Song: Soviet Internationale https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8EMx... PSMLS Website: http://peoplesschool.org/contact/ Party of Communists USA Website: https://partyofcommunistsusa.org/about/ Timecode Key: (Q&A) = Question & Answer / Response 0:00 Introduction 0:45 Reading 1 3:59 Role of Yeltsin 4:27 Excessive purges? (Q&A) 5:54 Stalin & "bureaucracy" 7:08 When to purge? (Q&A) 8:46 Role of Trotskyites? (Q&A) 10:21 Reading 2 14:06 Expulsion 15:19 Debunking Stalin myths 17:10 Striking a balance 17:49 Combatting opportunism 18:29 Expulsion for "passivity"? (Q&A) 19:53 Returning to the Party? (Q&A) 20:46 More Stalin myths 23:39 Reading 3 27:08 "Knowing enough" 29:16 Party corrections? (Q&A) 31:37 Bukharin? (Q&A) 33:55 Being more attentive? (Q&A) 35:51 Stakhanovites? (Q&A) 38:27 PCUSA vs. the rest 41:14 Reading 4 43:41 Crit & self-crit 44:52 PCUSA origins 47:03 Reading 5 49:01 Collective & state farms 50:15 "Dizzy with success" 51:11 Reading 6 55:07 CPC self-crit 56:16 Scum Mussolini 56:29 "Cadre" term? (Q&A) 56:50 Winds of history 57:32 Vulgarizing self-crit? (Q&A) 1:00:04 Individualist baggage 1:01:00 Stopping vulgarization 1:05:18 Foster reading 1:07:52 Felix Dzerzhinsky 1:09:37 Joined via YouTube channel 1:10:17 Stalin's importance 1:11:32 Communist love 1:11:58 Stalin's legacy 1:18:57 Communist pride 1:19:11 Passion & compassion 1:19:59 Capitalist projection 1:20:28 Concluding remarks 1:23:12 Ending

The People's School for Marxist-Leninist Studies presents a class over the book Socialism Betrayed by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny. This is a highly important work discussing the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We hope you learn something new! Interested in attending a class? Email info@psmls.org for more information Literature Used In This Class: Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Roger Keeran and Thoms Kenny https://valleysunderground.files.word...​ Recommended Literature: The Communist Party A Manual on Organization by J. Peters (1935) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/j-pet...​ Foundations of Leninism by J.V. Stalin (1924) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jv-st...​ Guidelines on the Organizational Structure of Communist Parties, on the Methods and Content of their Work by the Third Congress of the Communist International (1921) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/third...​ Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder by V.I. Lenin (1920) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/vi-le...​ The New Economic Policy by V.I. Lenin (1921) https://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...​ Recommended Viewing: Mission to Moscow by Michael Curtiz (1943) PSMLS Website: http://peoplesschool.org/contact/​ Party of Communists USA Website https://partyofcommunistsusa.org/about/​ Timecode Key: (Q&A) = Question & Answer / Response 0:00​ Introduction 1:07​ Bukharin 4:23​ New Economic Policy 11:12​ Stalin & Bukharin 12:14​ Stalin & heavy industry 12:34​ Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist 13:31​ How did Stalin come out ahead? (Q&A) 15:39​ Publication controversy 16:35​ Don't create a middle class 18:29​ Role of anarchists? (Q&A) 19:21​ Stalin's resignations? (Q&A) 21:45​ Don't create a middle-class cont. 22:59​ Stalin's plan 25:40​ Market socialism 28:12​ Trotsky's impotence 28:33​ Book link in the description 28:45​ Kulaks aren't your friend 29:36​ Conclusion

Happy April everybody!  The sun is shining! The birds are singing!  The world is slowly coming out of its slumber!  Will you hit the ground running with your Scrabble knowledge or are you coming to spring training an out-of-shape veteran who hasn't picked up a tile since last March?  Well here's your chance.  The uncommon six letter Js and Ks.    | JACANA  |  | JACALS  |  | JAGRAS  |  | JARRAH  |  | JALAPS  |  | JAPANS  |  | JUBBAH  |  JIBBAS JUBHAH | JERBOA  |  | JABIRU  |  | JOJOBA  |  | JUMBAL  |  | JAZZBO  |  | JEANED  |  | JAUKED  |  | JAUPED  |  | JADING  |  | JADISH  | HADJIS JIHADS | JASSID  |  | JUDOKA  |  | JORDAN  |  | JOYPAD  |  | JAEGER  |  | JAYGEE  |  | JAYVEE  | VEEJAY | JANNEY  |  | JARVEY  |  | JUGULA  | R | JUBILE  | ES | JUJUBE  |  | JOCUND  |  | JOCOSE  | R | JUDDER  |  | JEREED  | JEERED | JUDGEY  |  | JINNEE  |  | JENNET  |  | JOSEPH  |  | JERKIN  | JINKER | JUSTLE  |  | JETTON  |  | JUNGLY  |  | JINGKO  | GINGKO | JUGUMS  |  | JIMPLY  |  | JIMSON  |  | JUPONS  |  | JOYPOP  |  |   |  | KABAKA  |  | KABAYA  |  | KAMALA  |  | KANBAN  |  | KUBASA  |  | KWACHA  |  | KALPAC  |  | KARAHI  |  | KEBLAH  | KIBLAH | KITBAG  |  | KABIKI  |  | KOCHIA  |  | KIACKS  |  | KAPEEK  |  | KAMEEZ  |  | KASHER  | SHAKER | KINEMA  |  | KINASE  |  | KERRIA  |  | KNAWEL  | KNAWES | KEYWAY  |  | KAFFIR  | KAFIR | KHALIF  |  | KIAUGH  |  | KIANGS  |  | KURGAN  |  | KALONG  |  | KHAPHS  |  | KAINIT  |  | KUALKI  | KULAKS | KAMIKS  |  | KALIUM  |  | KRAFTS  |  | KOFTAS  |  | KIPPAH  |  | KIRPAN  | PARKIN | KARRIS  |  | KRAITS  |  | KOKAMS  |  | KAPOKS  |  | KORUNA  |  | KNARRY  |  | KANZUS  |  | KUVASZ  |  | KEBBIE  |  | KIBBEH  | KIBBES, KIBBIS | KOBOLD  |  | KIBEIS  |  | KUBIES  |  | KYBOSH  |  | KRUBIS  | KRUBUT | KOMBUS  |  | KUCHEN  |  | KIRSCH  | SCHRIK CHIRKS | KIDVID  |  | KERFED  |  | KENNED  |  | KEPPED  |  | KLUGED  | KLUDGE KLUDGY | KYTHED  | KITHED | KUDLIK  |  | KOODOO  | KUDU | KETENE  |  | KEEVES&

020221 White Privilege Endgame What Are The Kulaks A Must Listen History Of The Endgame by Kate Dalley

William Prigge Ph.D. is a history professor at South Dakota State University and a former history professor of Vance Crowe, at Marquette University.  They have a wide ranging fast paced conversation about how to analyze history as a world system rather than criticizing as a way of tearing down.  Vance and Will discuss: Why is it socially acceptable to have a picture of Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin on your wall, but not an intellectual leader from the Nazi regime?   How do the people of the former Soviet Union view themselves?  Is it inherently true that free-market capitalism is the best for everyone, or is that an ideology? Find out more about William Prigge: https://www.sdstate.edu/directory/william-prigge To learn more about the October Book Club: https://articulate.ventures/category/atcf-book-clubTo Join the Articulate Ventures Network: https://network.articulate.ventures/ 

By 1935 the Soviet regime appeared to relax its stance towards citizens deemed to be class enemies and their children. Stalin said: "A son does not answer for the father." However, persecution of former Kulaks and former members of the Tsarist order continued regardless, as many Soviet employers or teachers did not wish to appear lenient towards 'social aliens' in case the political mood changed and they were accused of anti Soviet sympathies. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Pateon.com/goodmorningliberty Despite $4.4 Trillion in Spending Cuts, Trump's Budget Won't Balance Until 2035 https://reason.com/2020/02/10/despite-4-4-trillion-in-spending-cuts-trumps-budget-wont-balance-until-2035/ Trump vowed to not cut Social Security and Medicare — hours before proposing just that https://www.vox.com/2020/2/10/21131316/trump-2021-budget-entitlement-cuts Who are the Kulaks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/goodmorningliberty/support

Nov. 4th 2019 In this episode we go over game notes from Arizona, Vegas and Dallas. Then we discuss Brett Kulak by the numbers and why is he out of the lineup?

Nobody knows what guarana is. Nobody knows what guarana is or what it is doing to my body. Topics include: Madiha enters the normie mindset; Esther's coffee misadventure; Madiha buys a nInTeNdO sWiTcH~; the Experience; i don't want to play Wolfenstein on it; let Madiha be messy; early misconceptions about how to optimize your Fire Emblem: Three Houses playing from people who do not read any internet resources on how to play the game, don't call in, don't tell us about it, we don't care about your opinions; nightmare gamer girl Persona3-chan; Edelgard eliminated the Kulaks and all of the enemies of the people; deliciously authoritarian; Esther played Persona Q2, nintendo 3DS exclusive; everyone has the wildcard; Chie loves meat, Kanji is still repressed; the music is still good; the maidenz played Bloodstained! its one of those things again, you know the ones; castlevania man; janky menus and UI; it's acceptably fun, but lacking...quality-feel; Konami trademarked the good whip tech; Madiha's insane whining about hadoken motions. --- Click here to vote for The Solstice War on topwebfiction! Send us questions and game jam submissions!! Rate us on iTunes! Email us at transmediacrity@gmail.com! Check out our TUMBLR and TWITTER and Curiouscat! SUPPORT US ON PATREON! Check out our YOUTUBE CHANNEL. Special thanks to Velt for our cover art! Check her art here. (Not worksafe.) You can find us at:  Madiha: Twitter, Tumblr, The Solstice War. Esther: Twitter, Tumblr

Listen to the podcast at this link, or view the article on our website www.bernielies.com Yesterday, Bernie Sanders gave an interview on the very popular Joe Rogan Experience podcast. After suffering through 31 minutes of the interview, we pinpointed 9 grossly manipulative statistics commonly spewed by B.S. 1. "Healthcare is a yuman right" People need proper healthcare, don't get us wrong. With that in mind, can you say that healthcare is a "right?"  What does it mean to have a right to something? You have a right to life, right? But that only means that you have a right to not have that life taken from you by an outside actor. The right to life does not mean that you have the right to force a doctor to perform a service for you. You would think that the right to life would mean that you also have a right to food(considering 100% of the population would die without food). Do you have a right to food? No. Don't believe me? Try going into your local grocery store, filling up your cart, and then leaving. Better yet, go to your local farmers land, and pick any amount of food you need. Then leave.  You have the right to not be killed, but you do not have the right to force a service provider to perform a service for you. It is a basic principle that you cannot have a "right" to someone else time. That's called slavery. 2. "Canada's healthcare costs are half as much as the United States" It is true that their total "costs" reported per capita is half. But what is behind the costs that are reported? In the US it is common place to receive a bill for $25,000 from just the surgeon on a medical procedure. Who pays that $25k? No one. In reality, the hospital or the surgeon are going to write a large portion of that expense off. If it isn't written off, they must have received a payment from the insurance company, but the insurance has a "contractual adjustment" on that bill- meaning they don't pay the full amount.  The problem? That $25k is the price used in Bernie's statistic. In reality, total out of pocket costs for healthcare in 2017 was $318 billion. Far less than the $3.5 trillion statistic used by do-gooder politicians.  Healthcare is too expensive, but experience has shown us that US government is not the entity to resort to if you want to decrease the cost of something.  3. His fight is stifled because lobbyists for drug companies are spreading misinformation. No. The bulk of people disagree with Bernie's plan because we all have access to a calculator on our phones.  4. Costs are up because of profit- last year the top 10 drug companies made $69 billion.  Blaming "profit" for higher costs is a long-time go to for socialists/marxists. "Bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers who fatten on famine." Vladamir Lenin prior to killing upwards of one million "Kulaks" in 1920's Russia.  The $69 billion in profit made by the drug companies sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is absolutely nothing in relation to the cost of healthcare. If you were going to use the $3.5 trillion number used by Bernie sanders, then the profit of the drug companies represents .00001 of the cost in healthcare. 1/10,000th of the cost. Literally Elizabeth Warren is more Native American than drug companies' profit is a portion of healthcare costs. That's $197 for each person in the US last year. People are not struggling because the drug companies made $197 in profit from their drugs. In relation, you probably pay $130 per year just for Netflix.  5. Medicare has been a success, and people love it.  If you look at a graph of healthcare expenditures year over year, you'll see the price line skyrocket --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/goodmorningliberty/support

This is a short history of the "Kulaks." A "Kulak" was the name for a wealthy peasant in 1920's Russia. They were the farmers. Even having an acre or two more, or one more cow, would get you the label of Kulak. When times were rough, Lenin and Stalin pointed the masses to the Kulaks as the reason for all their suffrage. What happened next was the inevitable ending of class warfare. It is the implied logical conclusion that comes from pointing at one class and saying that they are to blame for your problems. Almost a million Kulaks were murdered. Here's how insane this ideology is- The Kulaks were the ones that knew how to grow food. In the famine that followed the destruction of the Kulaks, upwards of six million people starved to death.  This ideology breeds such blind hatred for those who have more, that they never thought to ask "where will we get our food?" before killing an entire class of people.    www.goodmorningliberty.us www.bernielies.com   --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/goodmorningliberty/support

The Nazino affair (Russian: Назинская трагедия, translit. Nazinskaya Tragediya) was the mass deportation of 6,000 people to Nazino Island in the Soviet Union in May 1933. The deportees, mostly political prisoners and petty criminals, were forcibly sent to the small, isolated island in Western Siberia, located 540 kilometers (340 mi) northwest of Tomsk, to construct a "special settlement". They were abandoned with only flour for food, and little in the way of tools, clothing, or shelter, and those who attempted to leave were killed by armed guards.[1][2] The conditions of the island led to widespread disease, abuse of power, violence, and cannibalism. Within thirteen weeks, over 4,000 of the deportees related to Nazino Island had died or disappeared, and a majority of the survivors were in ill health.[3][2] The Nazino affair was virtually unknown until 1988, when an investigation by Memorialbegan during the glasnost reforms in the Soviet Union. The events were popularized in 2002 when reports of a September 1933 special commission by the Communist Party of Western Siberia were published by Memorial.

The Nazino affair (Russian: Назинская трагедия, translit. Nazinskaya Tragediya) was the mass deportation of 6,000 people to Nazino Island in the Soviet Union in May 1933. The deportees, mostly political prisoners and petty criminals, were forcibly sent to the small, isolated island in Western Siberia, located 540 kilometers (340 mi) northwest of Tomsk, to construct a "special settlement". They were abandoned with only flour for food, and little in the way of tools, clothing, or shelter, and those who attempted to leave were killed by armed guards.[1][2] The conditions of the island led to widespread disease, abuse of power, violence, and cannibalism. Within thirteen weeks, over 4,000 of the deportees related to Nazino Island had died or disappeared, and a majority of the survivors were in ill health.[3][2] The Nazino affair was virtually unknown until 1988, when an investigation by Memorialbegan during the glasnost reforms in the Soviet Union. The events were popularized in 2002 when reports of a September 1933 special commission by the Communist Party of Western Siberia were published by Memorial.

Last episode we ended with Lenin’s death. The roll out of Communism was well underway and it was time for new leadership. One his last policies before he died in 1924 was the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1922… A mixed economy put in to place in order to reintroduce a level of private ownership into the economy. Individuals could own small enterprises and some private property. Tax in the form of ‘Quotas’ were introduced with people getting to keep and trade what they produced over and above their quota. Lenin had a stroke not long after this, leaving him partially paralysed. This is when Stalin really stepped up being a regular visitor, and Lenin didn’t like Stalin – or his “Asiatic manner”. Stalin was Georgian and a bit of a racist. Lenin wrote to his sister that Stalin was ‘not intelligent’. Regardless, Stalin had support of a large chunk of the Bolsheviks. So…he was needed.   Joseph Stalin ruled from Lenin’s death in early 1924 to 1953 when he too died. What life was like under Stalin was brutal The movie The Death of Stalin is a black comedy about the power grab in the wake of Stalin’s death. The level of paranoia and fear seems a little hysterical (overacted) however it was pretty true for the time. There is a scene Stalin wanted the recording of musical group. It was a horrible event, but it makes light of the oppression people were under.   Between 1924 – 1927 Stalin spent most of his time killing off any challenges to power. Then by 1927, power was consolidated. He saw the solution for getting rid of the dissidents was to imprison them – in the Gulags. There were a few of these operational under Lenin. The number of concentration or forced labour camps grew from about 87 to over 350 Communist Party and The Soviet State considered repression to be a tool of control and enforcement. Securing the normal functioning of the Soviet state system (people toe the line) Preserving and strengthening their policies (redistribution) Keeping control of their social base - the working class (keep them in fear) The GULAG system was introduced in order to isolate and eliminate anyone not toeing the line Class-alien, socially dangerous, disruptive, suspicious, and other disloyal elements, whose deeds and thoughts were not contributing to the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Forced labour as a "method of re-education" was applied. This theory based on one of most famous Marxists in history – Leon Trotsky. Trotsky came up with the solution for dissidents. He was a Russian revolutionary, Marxist theorist, and Soviet politician – He was one of the ‘old Bolsheviks’ – and mates with Lenin. The Prison Camp idea was based on Trotsky's experiments with forced labour camps for Czech POWs from 1918 He wrote about "compulsory labour service" in his book - Terrorism and Communism   Why does all of this happen? Why am I talking about this part in a show about personal finance? These violent social policies have to go hand in hand with the economic policies of a Socialist or Communist society. It is about the collective and ‘Equality of Outcome’. With force being the only true way to guarantee the outcome. The economic policies of socialism have to be enforced by the State. Follow the logic – Say you don’t pay taxes, you would get notices from the ATO, eventually criminal charges and eventually you get taken away to jail Now imagine you went to the fields (which are meant to be the peoples’ anyway) and picked some left over grain for yourself. People were shot for doing this Or, you made a joke about Scott Morrison – That is 3 years in the Gulag! Any speech or action against the collective is a crime – and it has to be. No freedom can be present if equality of outcome is desired.   Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Gulag Archipelago”. A recount of stories from these camps from memory with first hand testimony from 227 fellow prisoners…it’s a looooooong book, around 70 hours of audio book.   What landed him in jail? He was fighting in WW2 and wrote a letter to his friend about conditions on the front – that was his crime. It wasn’t until 1973 when this was published that the world got to really learn about this. This caused the western world to start to wake up to the lies of communism. Before this, the Socialist plan was also lauded by some members of the Western media, and although much of his reporting was later disputed, New York Times reporter Walter Duranty received the 1932 Pulitzer Prize for Correspondence for his coverage of the first five-year plan.   Back to Stalin’s policies 1927 - 1931 Collectivization and industrialisation – The core of all Socialist policies The word ‘collectivisation’ sounds technical, a little dry, even boring. But, it’s the process of taking what people have, and spreading it around Human consequences were profound and dramatic. How does one achieve this? It is an impossible problem to solve to keep everyone equal at all times – So the only solution is to remove those who are on higher wealth positions on an ongoing basis, to keep redistributing that wealth until there is no wealth left to redistribute. It’s the perfect race to the bottom. The principle was simple. Richer, more successful peasants (Kulaks and Nepmen) had to be ‘liquidated’, by starvation, murder or exile. For equality – Those ‘with’ have to be taken from. But this requires dehumanisation. Sadly, the Soviet Union lagged behind the industrialisation of Western Countries during this period But Stalin argued that collectivisation was simply good Marxism. To build socialism on earth, he said, they needed to smash the peasants. Can’t have a truly socialist society if they still allowed people to farm for themselves and make money   What’s the reason they had lagged behind? Up to now the NEP was in place, but Stalin was not a fan Too free-market – Some people still could make money Kulaks (Rich peasants) and the Nepmen (small business owners) This goes against key socialist or communist policies and the belief in a controlled economy with no ‘evil profit’ 1928 - Stalin starting claiming that the Kulaks were hoarding their grain. The Kulaks were arrested and their grain confiscated, with Stalin bringing much of the area's grain back to Moscow with him in February 1928 - The first five-year plan was launched, its main focus on boosting heavy industry; Needed Labour to achieve this Prison Labour – The Gulags To meet the goals of the first five-year plan the Soviet Union began using the labour of its growing prisoner population 1929 – Stalin ordered the collectivisation of the agriculture countryside 1930 – Took measure to liquidate the existence of the kulaks as a class; accused kulaks were rounded up and exiled either elsewhere in their own regions, to other parts of the country, or to concentration camps. By July 1930, over 320,000 households had been affected by the de-kulakisation policy 1932 – About 62% of households involved in agriculture were part of collectives, and by 1936 this had risen to 90% Takes time to do it but once in place it’s hard to get out Productivity slumped, then famine broke out in many areas   Famines: Starvation in Ukraine – 1932 to 1933 1930 – Armed peasant uprisings against dekulakisation and collectivisation broke out in Ukraine, but they were crushed by Red Army – He wanted to truly crush them Stalin’s thugs roamed the fertile Ukrainian countryside, seizing grain that he could sell abroad — which would allow him to buy the industrial machinery he desperately wanted Around 3.3 to 7.5 million died in Ukraine – there are not many records 2 million Kazkhs population (40%) Remember – There were more people starved over one year than Jews who died in the Holocaust over 4 years   I will Skip over WW2 – Check out Ghosts of the Ostfront series by Dan Carlin who covers this well over a few hours WW2 had 70 million deaths in total (soldiers, civilians etc) – 30 million died in the conflict of Russia and Germany alone – Germany lost 5 million troops total in the whole war. 4million of these were on the Eastern front   I’ll also skip over the start of the Cold war – Remember too…governments do have the power to take whatever they want by force – if they write the law to allow it (South Africa and Constitution changes)   What Russia looked like when Stalin died Work-life was rough since unions were shut down as they are a competing power to the State. The irony is that a lot of unions are on the left No longer allowed to strike No concern for working conditions The collectivization created a large-scale famine - herded into vast state-run farms where they would toil ceaselessly for the greater Soviet good, instead of for private profit. Famine led many Russians to relocate to find food, jobs, and shelter outside of their small villages which caused many towns to become overpopulated. Millions dying because of starvation or even freezing waiting in line for rations People stopped having children - decreased the population. The imprisonment of others into labour camps – Not nice places – Especially from other inmates Dangerous prisoners were released and forced into labour camps People were forced to live in communal apartments Without work and the danger of being robbed for the possessions that they did manage to keep. With such living quarters people shared tight spaces with strangers accompanied by many other horrors such as theft, violence and stripped of privacy.   Socialism went on until 1922 – By 1991 more than 60 million had died… which is about a third of the Australian population every decade. These are pretty normal as far as socialist outcomes go.   Be careful what you wish for.

Today we’re going to run through the very first implementation of Communism on a mass scale. Our last few Furious Friday episodes are a lead up to this. If you didn’t catch those episodes, it’s not the end of the world but if you did manage to have a listen it will provide a bit of context to this episode.   Russia – 1917 under Vladimir Lenin & the Bolsheviks (Spoiler alert! It didn’t end well!) Firstly, it’s important to understand Russian History, pre-1917, as a prelude to the events that occurred. 1861 - Tsar Alexander II passes the Emancipation Edict, ending serfdom in Russia Alexander II was a pretty good guy (as far as leaders through history go) Sold Alaska to the USA 1867 for $200m in today’s dollars. Favoured an economic system similar to that in other European countries; Capitalism and free trade. Promote development and to encourage the ownership of private property, free competition, entrepreneurship, and hired labour Most Serfs were free (a third of the Russian population) They had rights (marriage, ownership of property, freedom) 80% of the population were peasants, substance farmers. Peasants were to receive land from landlords (though they had to pay for this eventually with money, or working it off through labour obligations) Landlords were paid 75% from the government upfront, and the peasants paid it off over time. This was abolished later on, so the full payments never really came through to the land owners. Changing the system so significantly is a very complex problem to solve. However, by all metrics it seemed to be working well as far as increasing the prosperity of the population. The land ownership changed hands significantly Previously there were the Gentry class – A social class whose land ownership provided their incomes (Mr Darcy from Pride and Prejudice). Land ownership by the Gentry class fell from 80% to 50% as the mobility of wealth under a freer society increased. Serf land ownership rose - 5% to 20% Substantial rise in the amount of production of grain Surprise, surprise! When people are allowed to keep what they produce, and are incentivized, there is an increase in goods produced. Rise in the number of hired laborers Rise in technology needs - machinery Remember: This was set up to be a free market economy – Efficiencies started to happen! Those who were more entrepreneurial could do more than just farm land as well 1890s - Industrial development A large increase in the size of the urban middle classand of the working class. This saw the emergence of the Kulaks, who were essentially the wealthy peasants By this time the second generation were entering adulthood. There was a 35% chance that their parents had been slaves. This gave rise to a more dynamic political atmosphere - the one downside of freedom Previously there was no hope of rising up, peasants were peasants. But, with freedom comes choice, and with choice comes wealth… You either chose to own something/keep what you earn, chose to work where you want Inequality is created. But this is then used as a tool to mobilise the masses – to create an equal outcome – where everything was utopia and everyone has the same amount of wealth During this period is when Vladimir Lenin was born – 1870 to be exact Wealthy middle-class family. His father was a serf who was freed, did well and became wealthy I’ll skip forward through Lenin’s life to 1917 when things pick back up – Spent most of time between being expelled from University, exiled in Siberia, then living in Munich, Geneva and London, or holidaying in French or Italian Villas WW1 was going on around this time Unrest is growing. The First Revolution: Disaffected soldiers from the city's garrison joined bread rioters and industrial strikers on the streets. More and more troops deserted the front lines and with loyal troops away at the front things fell into chaos, leading to the overthrow of the Tsar. In all, over 1,300 people were killed during the protests of February 1917 Didn’t solve the fight for power Enter, The Bolsheviks – A second revolution Bolsheviks - majority faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party, which seized power in the October revolution of 1917 Lenin came back to Russia in October 1917 – From Finland (wasn’t even there until the end)   1918 - Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic  Lenin gets to work on the new Government The first was a Decree on Land, which declared that the landed estates of the aristocracy and the Orthodox Church should be nationalised and redistributed to peasants by local governments. Decree on the Press that closed many opposition media outlets deemed counter-revolutionary The courts were replaced by a two-tier system: Revolutionary Tribunals to deal with counter-revolutionary crimes, and People's Courts to deal with civil and other criminal offences. They were instructed to ignore pre-existing laws, and base their rulings on the Sovnarkom decrees and a "socialist sense of justice" Decree limiting work for everyone in Russia to 8 hours per day. Issued the Decree on Popular Education that stipulated that the government would guarantee free, secular education for all children in Russia Embracing the equality of the sexes, laws were introduced that helped to emancipate women, by giving them economic autonomy from their husbands and removing restrictions on divorce Decree on Workers' Control, which called on the workers of each enterprise to establish an elected committee to monitor their enterprise's management (gangs of workers controlling the company they were working for) Issued an order requisitioning the country's gold, and nationalised the banks, which Lenin saw as a major step toward socialism Nationalised foreign trade, establishing a state monopoly on imports and exports It decreed nationalisation of public utilities, railways, engineering, textiles, metallurgy, and mining, although often these were state-owned in name only   1918 - Many cities in western Russia faced chronic food shortages and famine. What happens to a controlled economy? Price controls, for one. Things that are price pegged below cost fall into shortage To supplement - A booming “black market” supplemented the official state-sanctioned economy Lenin called on speculators, black marketeers and looters to be shot. (So, the food shortage gets worse) Lenin blamed this on the Kulaks - wealthier peasants (his father’s class) - allegedly ‘hoarded the grain’ Armed detachments were ordered to be established to confiscate grain from Kulaks for distribution in the cities Resulted in vast social disorder and violence - armed detachments clashed with peasant groups – Roaming gangs Bolsheviks’ Red Terror policy - a system of repression - sometimes described as an attempt to eliminate the entire bourgeoisie – 50,000 to 140,000 range of those who died (mass murder)   Mass murder doesn’t look good, plus there needs to be workers 1919 - Establishment of concentration camps, later the government agency, Gulag.  AleksandrSolzhenitsyn (Gulag Archipelago)… we’ll come back to this in the next episode. By the end of 1920, 84 camps, 50,000 prisoners; 1923, 315 camps, 70,000 inmates.  This was the early days for these slave labour From July 1922, all intellectuals deemed to be opposing the Bolshevik government were exiled to inhospitable regions or deported from Russia altogether; Lenin personally scrutinised the lists of those to be dealt with in this manner. In May 1922, Lenin issued a decree calling for the execution of anti-Bolshevik priests, causing between 14,000 and 20,000 deaths Common pattern – Anyone who has differing opinions or offer alternative hierarchy of beliefs In 1920, the government brought in universal labour conscription, ensuring that all citizens aged between 16 and 50 had to work. This is in a time when life expectancy was around 35 years old WW1 – Diseases and famine – most people didn’t know anything but work and a short life Infighting within – few civil rebellions which were quickly crushed by the Red Army By 1921 – Lenin got sick and went to the Gorki Mansion to spend his final years. In Lenin's absence, Stalin had begun consolidating his power both by appointing his supporters to prominent positions. 1922 – Stalin took over: Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – USSR That was the short summary of the life and policies of Lenin. From 1918 -1922, a body count of 3,284,000 (not including the 6.2m killed in the civil wars in this time). We’ll leave it here for now, next week we can run through the later part of the USSR where things really ramp up under Stalin The price of free is freedom – A government that provide equality and free everything has complete control over everything Thanks for listening!

Welcome to Finance and Fury, Furious Friday Have a think about how much you know about history? Are you familiar with the big events, like WW1 and WW2? Events that have been re-enacted in movies like Saving Private Ryan? Did you study it at school? Have you done your own research and study on these events as well? I’ve been listening to a lot of history podcasts: Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History is one of the best, the History of Rome podcast, as well as History on Fire… basically anything with ‘history’ in the title. The more I listen to these podcasts, the more I realised that even the general gist of an event in my head was way off in terms of accuracy. It’s eye opening learning about history from the view of those who were actually there. Soldiers on the front-line writing home about conditions, speeches from leaders and their political dealings behind the scene. This seemed so different – When was the last time you listened to a news story that shows you more than a 5 second clip of what someone said? The news anchor will spend the remaining time telling you a recount of what happened (rather than hearing it directly yourself Why am I going on about this? The more I listened, the more I learned of the same horrible events repeatedly coming up in the past One thing that was surprising is that most seemed to have the same elements as each other More surprising: I had no idea that most of them occurred - especially from the firsthand accounts We all know about the atrocities of the Holocaust – Approx. 6 million Jewish people lost lives Hitler established first camp in 1933 - Dachau Most of the killings occurred between 1941 to 1945 BUT did you know about the famine in the Ukraine between 1932-1933: when millions of peasants were forced off their land and made to join state farms under the Soviet Communist Party Leadership Throw in a bit of bad weather – 6 to 7 million Ukrainians died of starvation during this 1-year period Any food that was produced was taken by the state for the collective Remember: Ukraine was trying to fight for its independence from 1917-1921. They lost as Russia Invaded Ukraine with the Red Army in 1919, but they were still causing issues a decade later.   Economists and Historians have painted a pretty clear picture that it was to punish the Kulaks (wealthy peasants) who were the most productive. What makes this story worse is that it isn’t an isolated incident – however it is not well known. Since 1848 the same thing has been tried and tried again. It may have involved different countries, during different times, and given different ‘names” …yet with the same results It’s almost like that episode of Rick and Morty – Morty’s Mind Blowers, where he keeps having a memory removed. He says– ‘How many of these are just horrible mistakes I’ve made? Maybe I’d stop making so many if I let myself learn from them!’ Within Western culture there seems to be some Morties present, who are ready to repeat more horrible mistakes again The drug of Marxism and Socialism: A bad habit that humanity has picked up with the Communist Manifesto being published in 1948. Like with a lot of bad habits - people can ‘relapse’ back into them regardless of the negative consequences Socialism seems to have the characteristics of a drug addiction when applied to a democracy The first time someone does a drug they don’t do it thinking it is going to ruin their life The ideology of socialism has those warm fuzzy feelings as well, initially…until it ruins your life. When I look at political candidates in Australia, the UK, America, Canada, New Zealand there seems to be a rise in Socialist policies again - like a drug coming back! Socialism is a moral philosophy posing as an economic system. It’s a cancer for economic prosperity People think that the benefits of socialism (in theory) are that its greatest goal is that of common wealth; As the collective (State of people) controls everything, it can allocate resources to maximise every individual’s need best. And who doesn’t want to have all their needs met. Everything’s provided for you, it’s nice and safe. This is one reason why it’s hard to kick this habit – it tells a compelling story. Everything is free (healthcare, education, housing, loans, food, power, etc) Everyone puts in the same effort and gets their fair share It seems great at first, and this is what makes it addictive People wouldn’t do drugs if they had a bad experience first time round (or have the side effects up front). Once hooked it is hard to kick the habit Addiction, dependency and enabling Addicts who have someone enabling their behaviour will likely not stop – change is more likely if they hit rock-bottom When we become dependent on the government, it is hard to become independent again. We adapt well as humans, which has allowed our species to thrive when there was a race to the top Like all addictions though this one can ruin your life…through poor policy   Since the abolition of Monarchies, Oligarchies, and the Feudal system, there have been a few players in this game of political rule; The working class owns everything. Everyone is working towards the same communal goal (ironically, in the end this becomes staying alive) Theory – No wealthy or poor people, everyone is the same Everything is distributed based on needs in equal amounts. But someone else is determining what you ‘need’ Socialism – The State owns everything The State ‘pays’ the workers, the workers spend how they want The State determines what workers ‘need’ to get paid but relies on tax to continue payments So, think about that for one minute – The state controls all businesses so they set the tax on their own businesses and the workers, to collect funds to pay to run the businesses and workers? In a system with no waste that may be able to work in the short term. But there is waste (because it costs money to actually run the system) and eventually the tax runs out. The focus is on equal outcome, which is dangerous. For example, say you have a test – you study hard and get an ‘A’, but Billy gets an ‘F’. Your marks are then normalised and you each receive a ‘C’. Free Market ‘Capitalism’ (Adam Smith) – this model is not perfect, but reward comes to those who go beyond the minimum effort Owners are allowed to keep the excess production they earn. Competition occurs naturally which fosters advancement. Capitalism tends to create a sharp divide in wealth, especially with large populations China and America have lots of people. With the larger number, there is a more extreme difference between the top and the bottom, thanks to Pareto distribution The Rundown The irony here is they all hate each other. Communists hate socialists and vice versa, and it’s really about ‘People vs the State’ Hitler was a Socialist and Stalin was a Communist, Hitler’s Brown shirts would fight ‘Commies’ in the street. They both hate the free market, because they can’t compete with it. A major theme seems to be that countries have shifted between each throughout their histories. Communism and socialism are very, very, similar, they’re economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. Equality (read: Equality of outcome) - everyone has to have the same, society can only go as fast as the slowest person Australia is a free market economy with socialist policy (health, education, protection, etc), but mostly free market We have equality of opportunity – the free market provides this It also provides wealth. Ideologies that have to come from Democracy + free market = wealthy country Under free markets the rise of socialism often follows, as wealth becomes unevenly distributed In wealthy countries there will be wealth disparities which need to be equalised, the perfect feeding ground The greater the population, the greater distributions of wealth are going to be (Such as the U.S.) Pareto Distribution – the more data points, the greater the number of outliers, on both sides   Okay - Why I am covering this? Beyond WW3 or some mass extinction/fallout 4-like event, I think that this collectivist ideology is one of the greatest threats we face as a species. But like with financial literacy, economics, and even history, this point has been neglected We will be going to go through some examples of what has worked, and what hasn’t – it won’t be a boring history lesson. I don’t think it is pointless either  History provides a narrative going forward. The past is what created where we are now. George Orwell – 1984: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controlsthe present controls the past”. This is talking about controlling what version of history we are taught in order to control how we behave in the present. Radio invented: 1920s – Regulations on broadcasting networks required ‘public good’. News was invented to inform the public. Skip forward to the days of TV. It didn’t take long to learn that covering certain stories attracted more viewers, which is of course, more profitable. The ones that sell are drama/gossip, and little time is spent covering the important issues of the world. Plus – It is such a common occurrence that over-exposure to horrible things can desensitise us Unfortunately, ignorance about (or ignoring) problems means that we are more likely to repeat them I might sound crazy, but hear me out: We are in a democracy – By extension we vote-in our economic philosophy This is a great irony of life - with the freedom of democracy we are also responsible for not voting-in our demise. There is belief that socialism will work better for us. But remember, Socialism is a moral philosophy posing as an economic system. Everyone has to be equal, there’s no freedom, no hope. I don’t think that people are dumb  But we are very adaptable. When we are in a comfortable environment we can forget that life can be a struggle sometimes With Globalisation and technology, we have mass access to information, but too much can become overwhelming. We also forget that the majority of the world doesn’t have it so good. As a man (who will come up in future episodes) once said ‘A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic’ – Joseph Stalin – Boy did he get his statistics up But without perspective and gratitude we forget how great we have it – I like Australia and I love living here. We will likely repeat the same mistakes by changing something that has been proven to work well It’s not your fault – the media spends more time on doing hit pieces, or covering who wore it best, than reporting actual events So, it’s hard to get the information – therefore I want to provide some history that you might not have been exposed to in the past I want to spend a few Furious Friday Episodes to go through events that seem to reoccur in societies – time and time again - awful event in history of Marxism being implemented that you might not know about Think 7 Million starving under Stalin is bad? Well, try the 38 million which died under Mao’s Great Leap Forward in Communist China under economic reform Monday and Wednesday episodes will be as normal - Next Friday we start with the man himself – Mr ‘Silver Spoon’ Karl Marx Thanks for listening – If you couldn’t tell, getting this information out there is something that I think is important – hope you can get some info out of it to make informed decisions – If you can this with your friends – We really do have it good, let’s keep it that way

News Media: The mother of all social problems America in 2015 faces enormous social problems.  Throughout our history, America has always faced enormous social problems.  Today's problems are not any more challenging than those we faced in days gone by.  There has never been a time where America experienced a period of unimpeded bliss.  Every decade in each generation presented its own challenges to our constitutional guarantees. THE CHALLENGE OF THIS GENERATION We live in a period of pervasive institutional corruption.  Corruption seems present in every direction we look.  This too, is not new.  Corruption is what leads to reformation movements.  America has had plenty of those.  In fact, the great strength of the United States of America, is our ability to renew ourselves and our commitment to the principles of our founding.  Nevertheless, what is unique about the corruption we see today is how that corruption has now affected the news media.  Media corruption is not new or unique to this generation, but the pervasiveness of that corruption is new. HOW HAS THE MEDIA BEEN CORRUPTED In a word, the media has been politicized.  Journalists are human and as such are subject to the flaws and frailties everyone experiences.  Journalists, reporters, and editorial boards of newspapers have always had their biases.  In the past, it was taboo for that bias to bleed into what was supposed to be straight and unbiased news reporting.  It still happened, though.  Walter Duranty of the New York Times is probably the best example of how journalists can compromise their own credibility when influenced by political leaders they favor.  Duranty was the Moscow Bureau Chief for the New York Times during the years Joseph Stalin was deliberately starving 7 million Kulaks to death in 1931-32.  All during that time, Duranty was aware of the plight of the Kulaks, but continued to report on the Soviet Union under Stalin in glowing terms.  Duranty's reports were accepted enthusiastically by the left wing progressives in the US, looking for FDR to recognize the USSR.  His work has long been discredited.  But Duranty was just one man and not indicative of a systemic problem. Everything began to change after it became acceptable for political operatives to become journalists.  In years past, it was acceptable for a newsman to switch careers into politics, but not for anyone involved in a political career to become a newsman.  On the surface, this may appear unfair.  But it's precisely about appearances that the news media was concerned.  Even the appearance of being less than neutral was enough to be excluded from the ranks of journalists.  Clearly, someone who worked in partisan political organizations lost the appearance of impartiality.  Once the veil of impartiality has been pierced, it is pierced permanently. But that standard is no longer held.  Today, there are a great many former party apparatchiks posing as unbiased newsmen in critical positions in the news media, both on air and behind the cameras.  Although it is possible for these people to come from any political party, they are almost universally Democrats.  It should be made clear here that this refers to newsmen, reporters, journalists and anchormen whose job it is to report the news without bias and impartially.  News commentary and opinion pundits are not subject to the same standard.  In those cases, they only need to fully disclose their former or present political connections. The media corruption today runs deeper than most Americans may think.  There are also numerous cases of elite media news people with close relatives or spouses also in high positions within the government, which they are supposedly holding accountable.  Here again, we seen another ethical violation where the appearance of compromised professional integrity is ignored as if it doesn't matter at all.see The Incestuous Relationship Between Media and Democrats THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE:  THE SHILL AND THE PITCHMAN The behavior of the media in Republican debates is nothing short of appalling.  Particularly when contrasted with the same media's behavior in Democratic debates.  Debate moderators should ask tough questions.  The character of the questions reflects a striking level of bias.  Questions posed to Democrats are not hostile.  Media questions to Democrats don't pit them against each other.  If one examines the CNN Democratic debate, there wasn't a single question designed to bring any of the candidates in conflict with each other.  The result was, it wasn't really a debate.  A debate is supposed to compare and contrast the differing views of candidates, where each can have their ideas challenged by other candidates.  That isn't what happened at the CNN Democratic debate.  It amounts to something resembling a 2 hour infomercial, where the shill and the pitchman pretend to be conducting legitimate interview.  Unfortunately, the media behavior in the Democratic debates have made it transparently obvious they're all playing on the same team. CONSEQUENCES FOR AMERICA Conservatives have legitimate and workable solutions to every problem facing the country but they will never be given a fair hearing as long as the news media remains corrupted.  Americans should demand reimposition of ethical standards long abandoned by professional journalists.  No one with a previous political career should ever anchor a news program like Meet the Press (eg., Chuck Todd, former staffer for Democrat Senator, Tom Harkin).  No one should have editorial control over news programming when they have close family members in a Presidential administration (eg., David Rhodes, CBS News and Ben Rhodes, Obama National Security Adviser).  No former Presidential spokesmen should pretend to be unbiased news anchors (eg., George Stephanopoulos, ABC This Week and former Clinton Press Secretary).  All of these and many more should be considered violations of journalistic ethics and strictly prohibited. The media must be held to the highest standards or we will lose this republic.  

Is Obama really like Stalin? Listen to the Bellarmine Forum Footnote episode 16 wherein Dr. Manion examines whether the kulaks are alive and well in America today.

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin's crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin's Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it's mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn't seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn't fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin's crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin's attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin's crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin’s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it’s mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn’t seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn’t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin’s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin’s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin’s crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin’s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it’s mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn’t seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn’t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin’s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin’s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin’s crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely no one doubts that Stalin murdered millions of people in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. His ruthless campaign of “dekulakization,” his pitiless deportation of “unreliable” ethnic groups, his senseless starvation of Ukrainian peasants, his cruel attempt to “cleanse” the Communist Party of supposed “enemies of the people”–all of these actions resulted in mass death. In total, Stalin is responsible for the murder of roughly 10 million Soviet citizens. Again, this is well established. What is not well established is what to call Stalin’s crimes. As Norman Naimark points out in his thought-provoking Stalin’s Genocides (Princeton UP, 2010), historians and others have been peculiarly conflicted about this issue. Everyone agrees it’s mass murder. But is it “genocide,” with all that term entails? Etymologically, it doesn’t seem so: gens is Latin for “people who claim common descent,” that is, a clan, tribe, or even nation. The Kulaks were not a gens. Historically, genocide doesn’t fit well either: after World War II, the UN decided that it would mean “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial religious group, as such.” Again, the Kulaks are none of these things. Naimark, however, argues Stalin’s crimes should be considered genocide on three grounds. First, he demonstrates that some of Stalin’s attacks were genocide under the UN definition, for example his exile and starvation of minority ethnic groups. Second, he shows that some of those who sought to define genocide during and after World War II did not intend to restrict it to gens: they included political groups, that is, entities like the Kulaks. The Soviets and others demanded these groups be removed from the definition, and they were. Third, he demonstrates that international law has evolved, and with it the legal meaning of genocide: recent proceedings in the Baltic states, for example, have broadened the definition. Some might ask “What does it matter what we call it?” I think it matters a lot. Words are not only an interpretation of the world, but they are also a reflection of who we are. The words the Nazis used to describe their crimes–“final solution,” “transport to the East,” “special handling”–tell us much about them. The words the Stalinists used to describe their crimes–“purge,” “evacuation,” “re-education”–tell us much about them as well. And so we have to ask: What does our persistent failure to call Stalin’s crimes “genocide” say about us? Nothing very good, I think. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices