What better way to start this section than by showing that most of the big heads that govern an entire continent, if they really are big, it is only for the size of their skull, not for what's inside. That the Bannon's Boys do not have enough neurons for a synapse is self-evident, but that Europeans do not want to stay too far behind is more difficult to perceive.
In the "European Parliament resolution on the 80th anniversary of the start of the Second World War and the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe" the words Communism or Communist appear 22 times, Nazi or Nazism 15, Stalinism 2, Fascist or Fascism zero, America or United States zero.
"Totalitarian Communist regimes", "victims of Communism", "the Communist Soviet Union contributed politically and economically to Hitler's conquest of Western Europe", "Communist dictatorships", "in some EU Member States, the Communist regime has been declared a ‘criminal regime’ by law, and the Communist Party a ‘criminal organisation’", "the shared European legacy of crimes committed by Communist" are some examples of the use of the words Communist and Communism in the resolution.
Before any big head starts to get nervous, it is absolutely true that there have been regimes, victims, dictatorships and a lot of suffering, the error is not in this. Those are words that appeal to the stomach, to the heart, not to the brain. Whoever wrote this resolution reminds you of all these atrocities to cloud the reason, to make you angry and, once you're angry, throw some scapegoats in front of your eyes, maybe something the people who wrote it don't like, something they want to demonize, Communism for example.
Someone will now think: that is not a scapegoat, Communism was the culprit, they were Communists, they were part of the Communist Party.
No my dear, no. And I'll explain why right away.
Words have a precise meaning, they represent a certain concept and we should not change their meaning according to the advantages we can derive from them. Changing their meaning when we use them means deceiving.
Here is a clear definition of Communism that I didn't write, I'm innocent this time, it's on Wikipedia, it's simple and accessible to everyone:
Communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.
There are different acceptations for "Communism", for example I feel more like an up-to-date Platonic communist, but usually when we talk about Communism we refer to Marxism. And when Marx uses the word Communism, he uses it to describe a certain type of economy, we have to make a correction to the previous definition, for Marx Communism is not the movement towards, but the goal realized itself, everything that comes before it is not Communism, therefore for Marx Communism is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.
Now, please, think the truth, have any of you ever seen something like that? If yes, let me know where, because I am curious and would like to go there immediately.
A concept used by Marx is probably deliberately misinterpreted and transformed into something that is not, to associate Communism with regimes and dictators, but do not be fooled by appearances: the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Another simple definition from Wikipedia to help you understand.
In Marxist philosophy, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state of affairs in which the working class hold political power.Proletarian dictatorship is the intermediate stage between a capitalist economy and a communist economy, whereby the government nationalises ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership. The socialist revolutionary Joseph Weydemeyer coined the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels adopted to their philosophy and economics. The Paris Commune (1871), which controlled the capital city for two months, before being suppressed, was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Very interesting, the Paris Commune, but no mention of European states. And yet another bit from the same source to better understand.
The term "dictatorship" indicates the retention of the state apparatus, but differs from individual dictatorship, the rule of one man. The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat implies the complete "socialization of the major means of production", the planning of material production in service to the social and economic needs of the population, such as the right to work, education, health and welfare services, public housing.
In service to the social and economic needs of the population, such as the right to work, education, health and welfare services, public housing, clearly these are all bad things.
Marx's Communism should please all but the large capitalists, those who are often referred to today as 1% of the world population. Middle class, I am talking to you.
The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)
And Marx seems to me more liberal than the self-proclaimed liberals who wrote and signed this bullshit resolution.
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.
Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)
Instead of the words Communism and communist, others should be the words to indicate those regimes and dictatorships. Stalinism, for example, according to what I have just explained, has nothing to do with Communism. And self-defining oneself as a communist is not enough to be one, words have a meaning. If I say that I am a Nazi and I don't behave like a Nazi, it does not imply that there is at least one intelligent Nazi, which would be an oxymoron, it only implies that I am lying about being a Nazi.
Another sentence that shows the partiality and stupidity of this resolution is:
"whereas as an ally and partner of Nazi Germany, the Communist Soviet Union contributed politically and economically to Hitler’s conquest of Western Europe by providing Germany during the first 22 months of the war with a secure rear area, manifold strategic goods including oil and grain, and political support by ordering, for example, the French communists not to oppose the Nazi invasion".
Are you serious? And why didn't you also spend a few words on the Treaty of Versailles? Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had to accept full responsibility for causing World War I and the costs to be paid resulting from this responsibility. And if you made the effort to go and check the chronology of events, you would realize that it is not true. The lie was created under pressure from France, which did not want to clash with Germany anymore, for hegemony over Europe. Germans angrily denied that the war was their fault.
Don't you think that this has created the fertile ground and the necessary hatred that allowed a figure like Hitler to ascend to power?
And if we wanted to find out who was the muse of Hitler's best ideas, it would be enough to look for and read the page on Nazism, always on Wikipedia, if you really don't want to waste time studying:
Hitler and other Nazi legal theorists were inspired by America's institutional racism and saw it as the model to follow. In particular, they saw it as a model for the expansion of territory and the elimination of indigenous inhabitants therefrom, for laws denying full citizenship for blacks, which they wanted to implement also against Jews, and for racist immigration laws banning some races. In "Mein Kampf" Hitler extolled America as the only contemporary example of a country with racist ("völkisch") citizenship statutes in the 1920s, and Nazi lawyers made use of the American models in crafting laws for Nazi Germany. U.S. citizenship laws and anti-miscegenation laws directly inspired the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law.
But everyone knows that the U.S. are the heroes. We should also remember more often that they are the only ones who used the atomic bomb to kill thousands of people in an instant, they used it twice, not once. The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and remain the only use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict. "People" is generic, it doesn't make you shiver like listing hundreds of thousands of names, stories, broken lives. Women, men, pregnant women, children, babies, boys, girls, without even thinking about the thousands of animals, dogs, cats, puppies, all innocent. In an instant everyone died.
It seems that just as there are non-communists who call themselves communists, there are also Nazis who do not call themselves Nazis.
I'm not an anti-American, I'm just against U.S. policies when they have the objective of harming the Americans or the rest of the world. And it's not my fault that this happens too often.
Fortunately, the European Parliament thinks that strategic goods including oil and grain are more important.
This resolution would only make sense if another one had been previously and secretly approved to introduce Newspeak as the official language.
You should all be ashamed.