Sunday, October 17, 2010


I was born in the depths of the Cold War, and I served in the army from a few weeks past my 18th birthday until almost a year after the Berlin Wall fell, when I was 25. The entirety of my childhood and my young adult life was spent under the threat of communism, and I served so that none of us would ever have to deal with it face to face.

Some today view my anti-communist views with entertainment; they're quaint, in a way, from a time that no longer exists. Such people are extremely short-sighted.

We don't really have to worry about Nazism anymore, but communist-lite and communist-wannabes surround us today. When you hear people talk about how if only we had the right, smart people in charge, worried about the people instead of mere profit, things would be so much better for everyone--you're hearing a communist. Oh, they might not call themselves communists, but I challenge you to tell me where their views deviate from Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. I also ask what such people would do with those with whom they disagree; in every lefty is a tyrant who thinks the world would be a better place if only his or her will were forced on everyone.

So while I may sound like an old man who still rails against "the Japs" or "the Huns", I see myself as standing guard against those who still today seek to subvert our way of life. They don't even hide, in plain view or in the shadows.

Why do I seek to challenge them, to prevent them from accomplishing what they so desperately seek? I quote from Heinlein in 1949:

Let me go on record that I regard communism as expressed by the U.S.S.R. and its friends here and elsewhere as a grisly horror, a tyranny maintained by force and terror, utterly subversive of human liberty, freedom of thought, and dignity. I regard it as Red fascism, distinguishable from black and brown fascism by differences of no importance to me nor to its victims.

The threat still exists. I refuse to be struthious.


Anonymous said...

Hi Mr Miller,

I'm a former student of yours and was thinking about becoming a teacher, and I was wondering what you think of the "Teach for America" program as a way to get started?


allen (in Michigan) said...

That's why I've come to the conclusion that whether it's communism, fascism or a monarchy the only worthwhile distinction is between legitimate governance, i.e. government by the consent of the governed and illegitimate government, everything else.

For visceral reasons modern lefties prefer the latter while maintaining to themselves the pretense that the only thing wrong with the latter is that there's not quite enough of the former and bit more then we've got now would do the trick.

My own feeling is that value of a government comes at the price of accepting a certain amount of coercion but that that amount should always be viewed with the greatest suspicion and any increases subject to ruthless scrutiny.

Darren said...

Anonymous, contact me offline and we can discuss it. My email address can be gleaned from the "view my complete profile) link near the top left of the home page of this blog.

mazenko said...

While there is still a threat of communism in the world, "we the people of the United States" are not under any threat. The republic is under no risk of Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist control.

Darren said...

Fascism is fascism, and I don't like it even if its perpetrators are well-meaning Americans.

mazenko said...

And again, "we the people of the United States of America" are under no risk for fascism. It was ridiculous when people called Bush a fascist, and it's ridiculous to use it about the government now.

There is not now, nor will there be, fascism in the democratic republic of the United States of America.

Darren said...

You taunt me with the "democratic republic" talk. All that's missing is the word "people's" in the front.

mazenko said...

Fascism - hmmmmm.

"A rigid one-party dictatorship of the extreme right ... grounded in a close relationship between government and business interests ... using a belligerent nationalism (ie. patriotism) to suppress opposition and dissent ..."


Darren said...

I entirely dispute that fascism is based on the political right, as both German Nazism and Italian fascism were socialist in nature. While they allowed for private ownership of the means of production, the governments dictated all the production.

It's a convenient fiction--and I'm being generous with that term--that fascism is right-leaning. It wasn't called the National Socialist Workers Party for nothing. Which American party would try to wear that mantle? Hmmmmm.

mazenko said...

Regulating and taxing the means of production is far different than "dictating" and "controlling" it. Not to mention the fact that social programs are not socialism.

And if you don't think the financial sector and manufacturing need regulation, then I have no idea how to understand the utopian business world you foresee.

By the way, I commented on the debt posting at the same time I commented on this one, but it didn't appear. Did that comment disappear into cyberspace?

Darren said...

That's a good straw man argument, but that's about all that's good about it.

I've posted all of your comments that I've seen; if one is missing, it must be lost in the ether of the interwebs.

MikeAT said...

Darren, I'm going to sit back and enjoy you kicking Mike's ass for a while! :<)

Darren said...

There ain't no good guy
There ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and
We just disagree.
--Dave Mason
To which I add:
But I'm still right.

That's my take with mazenko :-) There are other commenters here whose glutes deserved to be kicked, literally, but mazenko isn't one of them.

mazenko said...

Thanks, D.

Darren said...

Can you feel the love? :-)

MikeAT said...

I would say we "Don't ask and Don't tell" but that was thrown out! :<)