Posted on 10/15/2013 10:31:59 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
“In 1934 a high-ranking member of the Communist Party, Sergei Kirov, was assassinated,” Cornell historian Holly Case wrote in The Chronicle Review. “His death, likely orchestrated by Stalin himself, was used to initiate a mass persecution that would result in over a million imprisoned and hundreds of thousands killed.”
“Actually, she’s a bit off on the casualty count,” we observed. ...
“The late Alexander Yakovlev, the lifelong Soviet apparatchik who in the 1980s became the chief reformer and close aide to Mikhail Gorbachev, and who, in the post-Soviet 1990s, was tasked with the grisly assignment of trying to total the victims of Soviet repression, estimated that Stalin alone was responsible for the deaths of 60 to 70 million, a stunning number two to three times higher than estimates in The Black Book of Communism,” Grove City College historian Paul Kengor has noted.
...Case wrote in a letter to us. “Many of Stalin’s victims came before that due to collectivization and dekulakization, which was likely why he initiated the Purge in the first place (to create scapegoats for those atrocities). I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your mistake and withdraw your post, otherwise I will simply conclude that you are ideologically motivated rather than interested in the truth…not unlike Stalin, in fact. “
... the UN, never a virulently anti-Soviet source, has noted that during the Ukrainian famine (1932-1933), “It was estimated that about 25,000 Ukrainians were dying every day during the Famine. ..." & from the Russian Archives themselves, by way of the Library of Congress: “...During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin’s former Bolshevik opponents in 1936-1938 and reached its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison.”
(Excerpt) Read more at academia.org ...
So.. you’re just here to promote your own stuff, huh?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:academiadotorg/index?tab=articles
How many hits have you gotten out of this marketing plan?
Have you paid anything for this advertising?
Hitler was a nowhere piker compared to Stalin.
The message is this: Communism kills entire nations. The idiot Baby Boomer generation saw this in real time when the Khmer Rouge did exactly what the Evil Right Winger’s said they would in the aftermath of their victory: they massacred 2.5 million people, about 1/3 of the Cambodian populace.
Communists always do this. They brook no opposition and make no apologies for totalitarian power.
And we have the very same people now in power in Washington.
Imagine what they really have in mind for us.
I have a great analysis of the situation, but..
(Excerpt) Read more at BLattingOG.com ...
This pulls him close to Mao for #1.
Why not just post the entire article instead of incongruent snippets?
Workers Paradise News Update
+1, spam.
I like finding out about web sites or sources of information that provide a counter to the leftist media onslaught.
Free Republic is a great place to find out about conservative sites or resources we might not otherwise come across.
Darksheare: “(Excerpt) Read more at BLattingOG.com ...”
LOL!
Official policy is “If it’s yours, post in full.”
If you don’t like official policy, take it up with the one who makes it.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2722423/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2776537/posts
];-)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2636843/posts?page=552#552 <—— and straight from the horses mouth so to speak.
I and I am sure many others learn of new resources from Free Republic all the time and are greatly appreciative of it.
I am sure Admin Moderators will take care of their own business.
Apostrophe alert: right wingers, not right winger’s.
You’re missing the point.
Read it AGAIN.
Especially the “send traffic FROM FR to somehwhere else” parts.
When someone cuts in front of you in line, do you wait for a cop to show up and dress 'em down?
No, they just complain about it.
And then gripe to everyone else about it.
Just like they’re doing here.
3 Similarities between pimp-busters and democrats:
1. They want to define who is a journalist.
2. They utilize techniques that work against their stated goald (posting in blog threads... thus bumping the thread and provide more hits)
3. They interchange “policy” and “suggestion” as convient to them. The title of your “policy” post was “A Suggestion for Bloggers Who Post at FR”.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2722423/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2776537/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2636843/posts?page=552#552
Perhaps you need to read official policy yourself.
It exists for a reason.
Don’t like the reason, take it up with the site owner instead of complaining to us!
It is HIGHLY annoying to go to a site and be assaulted with popups [Examiner blog] virii [Examiner blog] and have people use FR for a “Pay for site clicks” scheme.
No I did not miss the point.
Good day, Gentlemen.
I will leave you to your obsessions which you seem to enjoy greatly.
Because I’m limited to 300 words and the article is 485
I read your links... it doesn’t say what you say it says. It does state a strong preference not to excerpt. The name calling, confrontational enforcement and general jerk behavior by the blog-police is not endorsed anywhere in those links.
If you repeatedly find yourself assaulted by popups then perhaps you should actually look at the link before you click it. I find it highly annoying to select a topic based on the title, and find the discussion of that topic diluted by self-righteous pimp-police spamming rude remarks.
If you REALLY wanted to discourage blog-pimping, the simple answer would be to let people post the entire content in response to a blog-pimp post. That would remove any incentive to click the link, not ruin the FR conversation and result in a far less confrontational atmosphere here at FR.
Only if you diddle the excerpt button.
Lay off that and try it.
No impediment exists to anyone posting the entirety of their own content.
But I was stopped before I got it down to 300.
Yes you did miss the point.
Both of you did.
Tell me, what is SO hard about posting one’s own material in full?
That is the policy.
Is it really so hard?
Will they die if they do it?
Is it some handicap requiring special placards for?
Please, enlighten us as to why it is that you want to drive traffic away from FR for site clicks?
And csivils?
Yes, Jim’s post 552 from that thread and both mod threads do indeed state to post your material in full.
If you can’t read it and understand it that is hardly my fault.
I’ll put it here, so you can actually read the paragraph... including the first two sentences and take the entire thing in context.
And once again, I’m not defending the OP not excerpting. I’m calling out the rude behavior of the pimp-police. Your spam derails the follow up thread discussion and hurts the very community conversation that you claim to defend.
It has been determined that giving the pimps dollar bills and kisses
has very little effect regarding the curbing of their behavior.
On the off chance, you actually didn’t understand what I wrote... I was referring to the possibility that the response to an excerpted blog could be to post the entire content. This approach would remove the incentive to provide the blog with multiple pagehits, and not disrupt the FR conversation on the topic of the post.
I did not state there was an impediment, I’m not sure where you got that from.
I’ll defer to your experience on kissing pimps...
Have a nice day
I thought the boomers were the ones defeating the Communists on the battle field while the "greatest generations" congressmen, Journalists, news anchors, presidents, and Senators and Generals were finding ways to submit to them?
A lot went to fight...a lot didn't. And a lot would not have fought if it weren't for the Draft.
And a lot said stupid crap like "they're just agrarian reformers. There won't be a blood bath afterwards, that's just Right Wing BS".
Uh, no it wasn't.
As for the GG folks, well...who went to war in Korea and Vietnam, if not the same guys who fought WWII? By that I mean they were the commanders who reacted to Soviet internationalism and agitation.
The Boomers bought the Leftist BS in the late 60's about how we were just beating up on poor people trying to free themselves from Evil Imperialist Colonialism. That's simply being credulous morons.
The history of every Communist rebellion always ends in wholesale massacres: it's the basis of the philosophy - murder the Bourgeosie and anyone else who doesn't agree with you.
You don’t get it like most reasonable people.
Stalin and Lenin used terror as a management technique.It didn’t matter if you agreed with them or not, if it was time to reinforce terror in the populace, you died, frozen in the Gulag.
The large majority of people who went to the Gulag were guilty of nothing.
Communists always do this. They brook no opposition and make no apologies for totalitarian power.
And we have the very same people now in power in Washington.
Imagine what they really have in mind for us.”
Explains why our Progressives (Communists) are working so hard to get rid of the Bill of Rights especially the 1st and 2nd ones.
No, you can’t blame foreign policy and wars on 3 year olds, 12 and 20 year olds.
I meant the 9.4 million boomers that served in the military.
The under 30 vote of 1972 while we were at war in Vietnam and the draft was going on, when they voted 52% republican and 46% democrat.
The under 30 age group was the most supportive of the Vietnam war, of all the age groups.
It is rude to pimp a blog on FR for site hits.
Some people post the remainder after 300 words in the comments section. Don’t know if there is a limit on those words.
And people give the blog pimps grief, while others give rude pimp-police grief for being rude.
That is the way it works, be rude, someone calls you out for it.
Who said I was blaming the war on the BB’s?
I didn’t have a problem with the war then or now. Parents were hard line Birchers and Arizona Republicans, it’s a foregone conclusion for us!
But far more of them then you may admit were parroting ridiculous crap about the ultimate aims of the Communists EVERYWHERE and willfully ignoring their past.
As far as the ‘72 election, I was in college in a conservative state that year and I can tell you that McGovern was a popular guy on campus. Never heard anyone admit they were for Dick.
There’s no doubt that the war had major support up until 1970, and after that...tapering off. Was it just a small, noisy minority that scared Kissinger and Nixon into negotiating a way out?
Could be. But they certainly did make a LOT of noise if so...and changed the whole country in the process.
But Kissinger and others would not have negotiated that if they thought the country was behind them. Maybe they didn’t see your poll numbers.
Blog pimps are no better than trolls.
And people who defend trolls are themselves trolls.
Sorry, you will find zero sympathy for rude blog pimps fishing for site hits.
Regardless of the people you knew, McGovern only won 46% of the under 30 vote, and the under 30s were the age group that was more supportive of the war than any other age group, including the age groups leading the nation, in fact especially the over 49 age group.
The under 30 support was always much higher than the 49 and over who were always against the war, and almost always over the 30-49, frequently it was double that of the over 49 year olds, for instance in 1971.
You might want to narrow your broad brush, and even redirect your ire at who gave the world Pol Pot.
Under 30 30-49 Over 49 May 1971 34 30 23
I also fail to see how 34% of one age cohort showing support can constitute some sort of generational majority. Between the "no support" and the "no opinion" categories, you have have a majority who cannot be seen as supporting it.
So you have about 1/3 of BB supporting the war in 1971, not a small number (0.34*77 million = 26.2 million approximately).
So while they may have more supportive then the Geezer Gang, it still wasn't anything approching a generational consensus.
But let's go back to what I said. That is that BB's in general didn't seem to be aware of - or discounted - Communist atrocities in the 1930's, and that this skewed their view of the aftermath of a Communist victory.
Perhaps there is no data on this, so you have used support for the war as token representing the opposite view: that they did understand the dreadful possibilities.
I disagree. Even among combat veterans, I was surprised by the number who either were not aware of that history, or didn't think it would actually happen. This is my own personal experience. And it is only related to support for the war - even people who did support the war in many cases told me that they didn't think the North would do that. Very few spoke of the Khmer Rouge; too obscure.
Narrow my broad brush? Perhaps.
My sister was a Goldwater Girl who went to the convention in '64 and by 1972 was wearing a McGovern button (shades of Hillary!). My cousin was on the platform with Mario Savio in '64 when Clark Kerr had all of them either thrown off or arrested. He hasn't changed. I think that the unrelenting propaganda spewed by allegedly objective sources such as the MSM (ABC/SeeBS/NBC) changed many young, impressionable minds. A solid minority never bought that - that's the 34%.
But a lot of others did, and thus we have the modern world where much damage - probably irreparable - has been done.
Was it the 30's Geezers, the old Unionistas who wore the workman's caps and slugged it out with Reuther in Detroit? Or Harry Bridges in San Pedro? They were closet Commies, no doubt about it. I think that's your point: a far larger part of the so-called "Greatest Generation" were Pink Sympathizers with Uncle Joe, and that was the root of their opposition to Vietnam.
Perhaps. Maybe a lot of them just got drafted in WWII and didn't like wars at all. Met a lot of those guys, who were other wise Conservative.
So that's it spud. I still think a lotta Baby Boomers were ignorant boobs who were historically challenged. And that vacancy in their brains persists to this day, although it's somewhat been attenuated by Ronald Reagan's successes, and the reality that came out of the wonderful "Year Zero" of Mr. Pot and his chief executioner, the infamous and suitably named "Yek".
Support for the war, May 1971 :
| Under 30 | 30-49 | Over 49 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 34% | 30% | 23% |
If you took the trouble to show the May portion of that chart, why did you go to the trouble to cut off the previous polling results???
Under30—30 to 49—Over 49
January 1970.. 41—— 37—— 25
March 1970.... 48—— 41—— 26
April 1970..... 43—— 40—— 25
January 1971. 41—— 38—— 20
May 1971..... 34—— 30—— 23
You seem obsessed with the people you personally knew, who cares about your sister who attended the 1964 convention (at age 18 or younger I presume), and then became one of the 46% of the under 30 vote for McGovern, not the 54% voting against him.
As far as the under 30 support for the war and the 9.4 million veterans of the boomers, I posted. “””frequently it was double that of the over 49 year olds, for instance in 1971.””” Yet you pretended that you didn’t notice the January, 1971 numbers of 41% support for the Vietnam war from the under 30s, versus the 20% support from the over 49s, that looks like double to me.
You really need to lighten up on your agenda and pay attention to who really was losing the world to the Communists and betraying the boomer fighting men and the people of Cambodia, hint, kids of 5 years old, 15 and 20 years old didn’t run the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.