New York Times Romanticizes Ideology That Murdered 100 Million Innocent People

[TomSea]

New York Times Romanticizes Ideology That Murdered 100 Million Innocent People
By Joshua Philipp, Epoch Times   |  February 24, 2017 AT 2:05 PM

It has been nearly 100 years since the February Revolution in Russia, which was used by Vladimir Lenin’s Bolsheviks to launch a coup in 1917, beginning a century of communist rule around the world marked by social decay, famine, and genocide.

The New York Times is commemorating this coming anniversary with a new series of articles on communism, the first of which on Feb. 24 omits any mention of the crimes against humanity committed under communist rule. Instead, it writes glowingly about the ideals of communism and asks whether we will see the “phoenix rise from the ash heap of history.”

Most of the world agrees Adolf Hitler was a monster whose totalitarian regime systematically murdered 6 million Jews, among other victims. All told, 11 million people died in the Holocaust.

Yet, in a similar light, why do so many academics who oppose fascism seem to support communism, which has killed in various estimates between 100 million and 150 million people? That’s many times more than died under Hitler.

Continued: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2226787-new-york-times-romanticizes-ideology-that-murdered-100-million-innocent-people/

[Norm Lenhart]

Why do so many journos ask stupid questions? It's pretty well established that most academics are communist themselves. No shock they romanticize their own world view.

[Hondo69]

For years we've seen the Left idolize Mao, Lenin, Marx, Castro and Chavez, many of those in Obama's inner circle included.

Almost no one in the media bothered to point this out except for the occasional mention on Fox News.  I can understand why the Left would avoid any inconvenient truths at all costs, but what about the Right?  Maybe those on the Right didn't deem it all that important that key political advisors to the president were Communists.  Seems to me right about now would be a good time to grill the editors at the Wall Street Journal and other supposedly conservative publications about this glaring eight-year omission.

Glen Beck, formerly of CNN and Fox News, led the charge to point out the fact that Van Jones was a card carrying Communist.  Jones eventually was forced to resign in September of 2009.  But Beck was a lone voice in the wilderness while others on the Right were mostly silent.  Why did it take nine months for Beck's protest to gain any traction?  Why were the political leanings of other Obama advisors like Valerie Jarrett and Jay Carney deemed un-newsworthy?

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the ultra-Left fish wrap NY Times thinks Communism is awesome.  I wonder how awesome Communism seems to those who run the Wall Street Journal?

[Norm Lenhart]

For years we've seen the Left idolize Mao, Lenin, Marx, Castro and Chavez, many of those in Obama's inner circle included.

Almost no one in the media bothered to point this out except for the occasional mention on Fox News.  I can understand why the Left would avoid any inconvenient truths at all costs, but what about the Right?  Maybe those on the Right didn't deem it all that important that key political advisors to the president were Communists.  Seems to me right about now would be a good time to grill the editors at the Wall Street Journal and other supposedly conservative publications about this glaring eight-year omission.

Glen Beck, formerly of CNN and Fox News, led the charge to point out the fact that Van Jones was a card carrying Communist.  Jones eventually was forced to resign in September of 2009.  But Beck was a lone voice in the wilderness while others on the Right were mostly silent.  Why did it take nine months for Beck's protest to gain any traction?  Why were the political leanings of other Obama advisors like Valerie Jarrett and Jay Carney deemed un-newsworthy?

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the ultra-Left fish wrap NY Times thinks Communism is awesome.  I wonder how awesome Communism seems to those who run the Wall Street Journal?

Most of what calls itself the right is to the left of center. Perhaps not card carrying communists YET, but they arent entirely opposed to socialism. Look at the posts here on this very site over the last month by so called right wingers crying the blues every time Trump actually moves to fulfill a campaign promise like stopping illegals, stopping unfettered 'refugee' invasions and the like.

Always an excuse to be found to delay it just a little while more. Over and over and over again. The WSJ and NYT arent so different. When the chips are down, they are crony all the way. Which in the end is just socialism from a different angle.

[Hondo69]

Most of what calls itself the right is to the left of center. Perhaps not card carrying communists YET, but they arent entirely opposed to socialism. Look at the posts here on this very site over the last month by so called right wingers crying the blues every time Trump actually moves to fulfill a campaign promise like stopping illegals, stopping unfettered 'refugee' invasions and the like.

Always an excuse to be found to delay it just a little while more. Over and over and over again. The WSJ and NYT arent so different. When the chips are down, they are crony all the way. Which in the end is just socialism from a different angle.

Great points.

Woodward and Bernstein are celebrated journalists for their dogged pursuit of the truth during Watergate.  But without Ben Bradlee green lighting their work every single step of the way there would have been no Watergate scandal.  Maybe Bradlee had it in for Nixson, maybe he just wanted to sell papers, or maybe he was simply seeking the truth.  His motivations can be debated, the results cannot.

When Reagan ran for president both the press and his own party created a toxic political environment.  He was compared to Hitler, called a Fascist, and some even hinted he wouldn't last in office, implying in a backhanded fashion an assassin's bullet would end his presidency.  We all know what happened next.  It all sounds very familiar today.

The leaders of the Democratic party surely are not standing before cameras trying to calm increasing calls for violence among its members.  If they truly desired peace they would be trying to defuse the situation every single day.  But they are not and thereby they are offering tacit support for violence.  The leaders of the Republican party aren't doing much better.  One would think they would be going before the cameras every hour on the hour making the case for sensible discussion and at the same time against violent protests.  They are not.

With the media from both sides of the aisle fueling the fire and political leaders remaining silent it doesn't take a sage to peer into the future.  Maybe we need a few more historians to remind us of our past.

[Gefn]

Great points.

Woodward and Bernstein are celebrated journalists for their dogged pursuit of the truth during Watergate.  But without Ben Bradlee green lighting their work every single step of the way there would have been no Watergate scandal.  Maybe Bradlee had it in for Nixson, maybe he just wanted to sell papers, or maybe he was simply seeking the truth.  His motivations can be debated, the results cannot.

When Reagan ran for president both the press and his own party created a toxic political environment.  He was compared to Hitler, called a Fascist, and some even hinted he wouldn't last in office, implying in a backhanded fashion an assassin's bullet would end his presidency.  We all know what happened next.  It all sounds very familiar today.

The leaders of the Democratic party surely are not standing before cameras trying to calm increasing calls for violence among its members.  If they truly desired peace they would be trying to defuse the situation every single day.  But they are not and thereby they are offering tacit support for violence.  The leaders of the Republican party aren't doing much better.  One would think they would be going before the cameras every hour on the hour making the case for sensible discussion and at the same time against violent protests.  They are not.

With the media from both sides of the aisle fueling the fire and political leaders remaining silent it doesn't take a sage to peer into the future.  Maybe we need a few more historians to remind us of our past.

 

Nicely said.

[Norm Lenhart]

With the media from both sides of the aisle fueling the fire and political leaders remaining silent it doesn't take a sage to peer into the future.  Maybe we need a few more historians to remind us of our past.

Wouldn't matter if Washington and the whole cast of the Founders appeared by magic and sang the history of America personally. People 'know better' and say so every time they contradict their very words, scoff at principle and chant the manta 'No matter what!" when it serves their personal desires to. That's yet another hallmark of the leftists.

[Hondo69]

That's yet another hallmark of the leftists.

It's also a hallmark of a cult.

[Sanguine]

Wouldn't matter if Washington and the whole cast of the Founders appeared by magic and sang the history of America personally. People 'know better' and say so every time they contradict their very words, scoff at principle and chant the manta 'No matter what!" when it serves their personal desires to. That's yet another hallmark of the leftists.

Positively Biblical, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it's not just a hallmark of leftists, but of people in general.  It takes a lot of work and painful introspection to remain as true to our values as people can. 

[Fishrrman]

The spirit of Walter Duranty seems to be alive and well at The Times...

[Norm Lenhart]

Positively Biblical, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it's not just a hallmark of leftists, but of people in general.  It takes a lot of work and painful introspection to remain as true to our values as people can.

I don't think it's that hard really. To be honest, I think truly hard value choices are rare. Sure we all slip from time to time as we are human afterall (most of us at least, others havent evolved that far). I think it comes down to how one was raised. Some people were raised to put truth and integrity high on the priority list in ones life, and some people's parents failed them completely. People raised to embrace situational ethics have no issue tossing ethics when they interfere with the desire of the moment. We see it on the left under the guise of 'personal truths' and 'living documents'. On the right, they call that very same ethical failure 'pragmatism'.

How ethical is a person to begin with when he or she can simply do as they will (which shall be the whole of the law, as Crowley once noted) and call it pragmatic?

[XenaLee]

Most of what calls itself the right is to the left of center. Perhaps not card carrying communists YET, but they arent entirely opposed to socialism. Look at the posts here on this very site over the last month by so called right wingers crying the blues every time Trump actually moves to fulfill a campaign promise like stopping illegals, stopping unfettered 'refugee' invasions and the like.

Always an excuse to be found to delay it just a little while more. Over and over and over again. The WSJ and NYT arent so different. When the chips are down, they are crony all the way. Which in the end is just socialism from a different angle.

And..... as we all know.... socialism is just communism with a smiley face.

Here's hoping that more focus and light will be directed onto these leftist cockroaches that infest America... including those at the NYT.

[Bigun]

The spirit of Walter Duranty seems to be alive and well at The Times...

It never left!

[Bigun]

Most of what calls itself the right is to the left of center. Perhaps not card carrying communists YET, but they arent entirely opposed to socialism. Look at the posts here on this very site over the last month by so called right wingers crying the blues every time Trump actually moves to fulfill a campaign promise like stopping illegals, stopping unfettered 'refugee' invasions and the like.

Always an excuse to be found to delay it just a little while more. Over and over and over again. The WSJ and NYT arent so different. When the chips are down, they are crony all the way. Which in the end is just socialism from a different angle.

Unfortunately, most have absolutely NO idea how far gone we already are!

Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter 2

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Read it and weep!

[Norm Lenhart]

Unfortunately, most have absolutely NO idea how far gone we already are!

Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter 2

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Read it and weep!

"They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. "

Gee that sure is functionally indistinguishable from "Principle is the problem" and 'no matter what' ain't it? Yup. It is.

[geronl]

It was a lot more than 100 million

[Bigun]

"They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. "

Gee that sure is functionally indistinguishable from "Principle is the problem" and 'no matter what' ain't it? Yup. It is.

From the document I linked to above for those to lazy to read to the end:

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
 
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
 
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
 
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
 
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
 
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

[Smokin Joe]

Great points.

Woodward and Bernstein are celebrated journalists for their dogged pursuit of the truth during Watergate.  But without Ben Bradlee green lighting their work every single step of the way there would have been no Watergate scandal.  Maybe Bradlee had it in for Nixson, maybe he just wanted to sell papers, or maybe he was simply seeking the truth.  His motivations can be debated, the results cannot.

When Reagan ran for president both the press and his own party created a toxic political environment.  He was compared to Hitler, called a Fascist, and some even hinted he wouldn't last in office, implying in a backhanded fashion an assassin's bullet would end his presidency.  We all know what happened next.  It all sounds very familiar today.

The leaders of the Democratic party surely are not standing before cameras trying to calm increasing calls for violence among its members.  If they truly desired peace they would be trying to defuse the situation every single day.  But they are not and thereby they are offering tacit support for violence.  The leaders of the Republican party aren't doing much better.  One would think they would be going before the cameras every hour on the hour making the case for sensible discussion and at the same time against violent protests.  They are not.

With the media from both sides of the aisle fueling the fire and political leaders remaining silent it doesn't take a sage to peer into the future.  Maybe we need a few more historians to remind us of our past.

They want confusion, violence, and chaos.

Otherwise, red-blooded white-bread Americans won't DEMAND their rights be taken away to establish order.
 
Totalitarian Government is the Goal both sides of the aisle have been working toward with few exceptions. It won't matter which Party they are from, the rules will be for the 'little people', the "proles" who will pick up the tab. The "Elite", including the press, will do just fine either way.

[Smokin Joe]

From the document I linked to above for those to lazy to read to the end:

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
 
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
 
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
 
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
 
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
 
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Lest anyone doubt or forget, read these: Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Most of those 45 have been accomplished.

[Mod2]

Moved to editorial/opinion

[Bigun]

Lest anyone doubt or forget, read these: Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Most of those 45 have been accomplished.

I've seen that MANY times before and you are right!  Most of those things are in place today. Mainly because people like us tend to sit around on our asses and let it happen! 

I'm as guilty as anyone else in that regard but will not be ever again!

[Smokin Joe]

I've seen that MANY times before and you are right!  Most of those things are in place today. Mainly because people like us tend to sit around on our asses and let it happen! 

I'm as guilty as anyone else in that regard but will not be ever again!

Sadly, even in Kruschev's day people said you were 'just paranoid, it can't happen here'

When Communism was declared 'dead', it got the greatest boost of all, that coming after the New Left (Communists) started their solid takeover of the Democrat Party in the '60s.

Well, here we are

Imagine telling your grandfather back when about transgender bathrooms, and invading hordes from elsewhere, Mosques in major cities, 'safe zones', vagina hats/costumes on parade in DC, or a 'Gay Pride' group marching on St Patrick's Day...

"Nonsense, Boy, It'll never happen here."