I'm re-posting this post that I wrote about 6 months ago called "The New Communism" because I am going to be writing another post, or perhaps a series of posts, in the coming weeks that expand on these ideas.

Ever since I wrote this post, I have found myself bothered by my inability to explain what I mean exactly by calling Neo-Communism a "pattern". I wrote:

My theory is that Communism is a force and what I call a "Pattern" of its own. What do I mean by a "Pattern"? It's best defined by example. You are a Pattern. Everyone on Earth is a Pattern. Nature itself is the all encompassing and most elaborate Pattern. Molecules are Patterns. DNA is a Pattern. Everything is really a Pattern.

I found myself continually wanting to post about this idea, but I couldn't do it without wandering off into philosophical meanderings about things that aren't really in the context of this board.

One of the valuable lessons that I've learned in my life is that if you are working to fix a problem and find yourself continually frustrated by your inability to fix it, you have to get up and just walk away. So, I stayed off of this board for a few months and decided to try and get a clue about what the hell I was actually talking about. I found out some fascinating things and I am going to attempt to apply these ideas to what I call "Neo-Communism" and demostrate why Neo-Communism and consequences of it, like Anti-smoking, exist.

It occured to me several months ago that the rise of an oppressive force like anti-smoking is probably some kind of natural force that is pervasive throughout nature. Some group is always trying to oppress another for some reason. Why? More specifically, why does it emerge as something so powerful and pervasive like anti-smoking? Why do people have such trouble recognizing such things when they emerge? Most importantly, why do we know that this trend is going to behave in a specific way. It acts, as a mass force, in a way that is highly predictable, but we have no name for what this "mass force" is. The only way that we can identify it is when we see it happening, and we call it all kinds of different names like "fascism", "communism", "racism", "socialism", etc. but when people try to draw distinctions between these labels, the grey areas get very big. Really, it's all just name calling. There has to be some kind of thread, some thread that as a natural force works on its own.





Well, I've said enough. No has posted in "Picking the Mind of an Anti" in eleven days, so I'm posting this here. The way this usually goes, after 11 days of no one posting, I'm overposted within hours ("Okefenokee Smoking Ban Passes! I'm Shocked!"). Anyway, I'll keep these "deep thoughts" down here in the slower forums where they're not bothering anyone.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Here is "The New Communism" as I posted it in early February 2007.

Communism

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

2. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

3. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Socialism

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


For half of the twentieth century, America fought against Communism. We fought the Korean War and the Vietnam War to stop it from spreading. We armed Afghanistan to fight Communist invasion to our later peril on 9/11. The lesser motive for two atomic bombs being dropped on Japan was to show our nuclear might to The Communists. We've ended all trade with Cuba, an island nation 90 miles from the U.S. mainland. In a manner similar to sickle cell anemia developing as a defense against malaria, we built an arsenal of destruction that could effectively wipe out life on Earth. We effectively said "We'd rather make the Earth a dead, radioactive planet than live under Communism."

Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon despised Communism.

Reagan viewed Communism as some kind of aberant mass psychosis.

I wholeheartedly agree. Communism is a a dead, failed, oppressive, murderous method of government.

Twenty years after Reagan told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" we find a large percentage of Americans screaming at the top of their lungs for a Communist America, though these people rarely, if ever, call themselves Communists. Most of them are probably unaware that they're asking for Communism.

How did this happen? Why are things so different now?

I believe that this happened as an unintended consequence of the end of The Cold War. The reason you never hear this is because admitting it would be detrimental to both of the major political parties in The U.S. Ronald Reagan, I believe with the best of intentions, ended The Cold War.

Reagan believed this would help free markets spread throughout the world, end the ever-present threat of nuclear annhilation, and end the threat of Communist invasion for foreign nations and, possibly, our nation. He had to do it. It was a tremendous victory. Republicans will never say that Reagan's actions were an unintentional cause for Communist ideology in the U.S.

Reagan is a Republican God.

Democrats will never say that the end of The Cold War caused a spread of Communist ideals in the U.S. because they desired an end to The Cold War as well and they're not likely to say that ending it was a bad thing. They're also not likely to bring it up very much because it was an awesome Republican victory. Also, though they may be in denial about labelling their ideas as such, many Democrats support Communism. JFK's Democrats are long gone. (I suspect that many still vote for Democrats because they believe on some level that they're voting for JFK's party).

America was in The Cold War for 40+ years. When your nation is engaged in Mutually Assured Destruction with another nation, you'll find very little breathing room for an ideology that the opposing nation holds as its central premise.

When the Berlin Wall fell, people who sympathized with Communist ideologies in the United States came out. For 40 years, they held their silence, because they would be identified and there would be repercussions. Even after the Berlin Wall came down though, there was still enough bad feeling (and the negative connation still sticks today) to come out and say "I'm a Communist". So what did these people do?

They taught Communist ideals in our colleges and universities without ever calling it "Communism". It's been nearly 20 years since this started, so the people who are now running this society have, and are continuing to have, a never named Communist ideology as their formal education. It has now spread itself very effectively into our public education system as well. Screw reading, writing and arithmetic; we've got an ideology to sell.

A College education in America was once an exceptional thing. It was recognized as something that would give you immediate advancement in Capitalist America because you received a practical education with practical applications that could benefit industry and society.

That's changed. The same people who wanted to spread their ideology via colleges and universities worked to ensure that more and more people who couldn't afford, or, even meet the academic standards, for a college education were guaranteed admission.

Today, a college education is viewed as a minimum requirement for jobs that don't need workers who went to college, but, rather, need people who have an education. This is a consequence of the meaningfulness of a college education being so watered down. A meaningful, well intended intellect is now asked to pay many tens-of-thousands of dollars for an education that has much less practical applicability and is more of an assurance of appropriate social indoctrination. A degree in the Liberal Arts, for example, has become increasingly meaningless. A degree in English once meant "I can write and communicate", though that had limited market value.

Today, the same degree says "Well, I went to College, took a relatively easy subject, and was properly indoctrinated". It says "you probably won't be sued if you hire me".

(I know. My degree is in English. 50% of my education was comprised of professors preaching their Socialist political gospel.)

We are the Post-Cold War Generation. "Generation X" was a generation that was enjoying the immediate bounce of trying to identify a world in which a cold war didn't exist. Everything was as it should have been, but "Generation X" didn't know how to identify itself in this new world, and the Gulf War never added up to a defining moment. "Generation X" was a metaphor for the meaningless, but the letters may have an unintended significance. We're now into "Generation Y".

"Generation Z" is probably just that; The End.

Anti-smoking, in my view, is part of an agenda to end free-market Capitalism and move toward Socialism (Communism-Lite) then on to Communism. Smoking existed in Communist Russia, but the point isn't smoking; the point is that tobacco is Capitalism. This point raises many questions, because there appear to be some contradictions. Big Pharma is Capitalism, right? I'll get to that.

In my view, this is the same mistake Reagan and most people made regarding Communism. Take a look again at the analogy I made earlier about sickle cell anemia and malaria and mutually assured nuclear annhilation.

My theory is that Communism is a force and what I call a "Pattern" of its own. What do I mean by a "Pattern"? It's best defined by example. You are a Pattern. Everyone on Earth is a Pattern. Nature itself is the all encompassing and most elaborate Pattern. Molecules are Patterns. DNA is a Pattern. Everything is really a Pattern.

I believe that, in the same way that tangible, physical things have Patterns, intangible things like thoughts, religions, and ideologies also have Patterns. As you read this, for example, I am communicating to you despite the fact that you've never seen me and never heard me speak. If you read other things I write, you may find a consistency; what you are recognizing is a Pattern; the Pattern of my mind and a bit of my personality.

Please don't confuse what I'm implying with some implication of mysticism or the supernatural. What I'm talking about with Patterns is perfectly natural and extremely practical. Recognizing Patterns is the way that we make sense of reality.

We believe that because we create societies, and political and religious ideologies that we are somehow their masters. We have a symbiotic, interwoven relationship with these ideologies, but, in reality, they are separate entities from us once we create them. Every parent knows, for example, that their child is not only a reflection of themselves, but a completely new and separate entity. Separate, though, does not mean independent and autonomous. At least while still a child, every parent knows that their child is dependent on them, but the child is something else from the parent altogether. Conversely, even after the parent is long gone, there is still a symbiotic connection between parent and child.

The way that we recognize that a child is a separate entity from the parent is the same way that we recognize that a political system is a separate entity from the people who reinforce it. We recognize the difference because of the way children and political systems behave. Over time, this behavior, for both children and political systems, forms a recognizable Pattern.

The "Communist Pattern" that emerged in the twentieth century was so powerful that we had to bring ourselves to the point of self-annhilation to keep it from manifesting itself. The Communist Pattern didn't end just because Communist Russia ended. That's kind of a ridiculous notion. That's kind of like nailing a guy to a cross and hoping that everyone will forget what he said.

What we're seeing taking place in our country is a new, tougher strain of Communism. Our nation has a very difficult time admitting this even though it spent half a century getting to know what Communism is from the outside. Now we have it on the inside, and we can't recognize it when it's right in front of our eyes. I've come to believe that there was a recognition of something by U.S. leaders in the 20th century that, though a bit intangible and difficult to articulate, they sensed very strongly. They knew that Communism has an extremely insidious and silent method of introducing itself into a society. Free societies aren't, and never have been, normal Patterns in this world, and the U.S. has had to keep an imperfect system of Freedom alive at the expense of millions of lives and an extremely elaborate Military/Industrial Pattern that may itself be a threat to the very Freedom it was built to protect. The Communist Pattern is very difficult to stop once it starts.

What about the inconsistencies? Big Pharma is Capitalism. People in Communist Russia smoked. How can anti-smoking be part of the emergence of anti-Capitalist, Communist Pattern?

When a powerful political Pattern, like this New Communist Pattern, or, as I'll call it, Neo-Communism, emerges, it takes a relentless path of least resistance. It was created by humans, but it doesn't use human rules. It's an ideological Frankenstein's Monster. It holds hostages as long as it needs to, even if it is a very long time, then shoots them when it's done with them.

Big Pharma and Big Tobacco, you'll notice, at least in perception, are flip sides of a coin. Big Pharma is a greedy, avaricious and extremely powerful force that is commonly perceived as doing good for the world. Big Tobacco is a greedy, avaricious and extremely powerful force that is commonly perceived as doing evil to the world. How ironic that they should find themselves so interwoven. The two are like a married couple that fights for days as a build-up to passionate, interlocking sex. They don't fight so often because they're so different. They fight so often because they're exactly alike and repel each other like two positive charges that cause an explosion when they slam together.

Neo-Communism uses this relationship to its advantage and, now, almost completely drives and defines Big Pharma and Big Tobaccos role in the world. Once Neo-Communism has what it wants, it will put the muzzle to both of their heads and pull the trigger; first on Big Tobacco and then Big Pharma. Neo-Communism doesn't care who its victims are. For Old Communism, the victims were probably mining and manufacturing. If this seems a bit difficult to recognize, it's because like a chess game, its a few moves ahead before it can become clear, and it will only be clear if someone takes note to look back.

People, despite creating the larger Patterns of Societies and Industry, are much smaller and usually, less powerful patterns as individuals.( There are only so many Churchills or Martin Luther Kings.) Most of our leaders, as we constantly realize, aren't much better, or even worse, than we are.

Preserving individuality and Individual Freedom was meaningless under Old Communism. It killed 40 or 50 million people to preserve its larger Pattern. That's about 1000 years of worth of today's annual U. S. SAMMEC deaths.

I wonder how many Neo-Communism will kill? We'll never know. No one's looking that far ahead.

None of what is currently going on in the world on the Neo-Communist front has anything to do with what it claims to care about. Environmentalism may consist of individuals concerned about the environment, but in reality, they're simply serving on a third tier down for the Neo-Communism Pattern and most are probably oblivious of their Master. Anti-smoking doesn't care at all about anyone's health. The stated intention of anti-smoking is to promote health and encourage people to quit smoking. The Pattern that anti-smoking serves is hate, oppression, social engineering and Totalitarianism. It serves a Pattern that is differerent from the stated intention that is continually used to justify the Pattern. Anti-smoking is an antagonsistic force to people who smoke, as is evidenced by your reading this. It's very clear at this point that the stated intention is somewhere in the dust of the past; the Pattern now rules and that pattern is Neo-Communism.

This is why anti-smoking doesn't make any sense, but is still popular. Anti-smoking is simply a pretense for Neo-Communism. When people do the fake cough when you smoke, they're only opposing your smoking because they are serving the larger, Neo-Communist pattern that they are completely oblivious of, despite its power over them.

It's a whole new (actually old) idea! be hated and oppressed right into the open arms of those who hated and oppressed you! As if all of your life and being can be reduced to the white stick in your hand while the real you is completely negated. Join our loving collective! (Or we'll f**king make you, you damn, dirty son of a bitch!) In the end, we'll all love Big Brother.

Our Nation used to willingly flirt with its own annhilation to prevent the spread of such ideas. That was only 20 years ago.

This generation does not have the gumption, the intestinal fortitude of previous generations. This generation is afraid of cellphones and cheeseburgers. If the current American generation had to fight World War II, they would certainly lose.

I don't know what mountaintop to scream from. This situation has become very desperate.

Freedom is some tough business.

quote:

This generation does not have the gumption, the intestinal fortitude of previous generations. This generation is afraid of cellphones and cheeseburgers. If the current American generation had to fight World War II, they would certainly lose.

Okay, so is there something in the anti-smoking that is the offshoot or the reinforcement of turning the masses into people who are afraid of everything? Is it people who are heavy-laden with too much fear that are less likely to get up and fight, or something like that?
It's not that they're are really afraid of SHS (though they certainly are of cancer), so much as it's the sum total of being injected with thousands of little doses of fears, that might work just as well on numbing the fight-back responses of the masses, as other types of more obvious larger does fear-inducing strategies?