Liberalism Essay, Research Paper

Under communism, only the tiniest fraction of people expressed open dissent against the system. The system tried to draw in as many people as possible as accomplices. One of the most effective means was the threat that a failure to actively denounce opponents of the ideology would mean classification as a supporter.

Communism is a system that follows the roots of Marxism. It unites the people into one class and call for industrial power. All the people work, the people are all at the same social level. It creates a false sense of unity. Most of these communist governments are dictatorships; the government oppresses all opposing views. Communist polices deny people their basic rights and freedom. The people cannot even own their own private property. The methods of Communism have been varied slightly by each different government. People living under communist rule have very few personal belongings; the government took most of theirs. The communists try to make everyone equal by not allowing personal property. They also state that everyone must work. Economic freedom allows people in democratic countries to get ahead in social status and wealth. Under communist rule, Nobody can cross the dictator or oppose his or her views it would certainly be considered treason and the consequences lethal. Through communism, people would contribute to the economy according to their ability and receive things according to their need.

The ‘racists’ are well-organised and to blame for nearly everything which goes wrong according to authority, just like the ‘counter-revolutionaries, western spies and saboteurs’ in the heyday of communism. Under communism the newspapers would say ‘capitalist spy ring raided’. Under liberalism we read ‘police target racist groups’. In both cases good citizens are to congratulate themselves on the skill and wisdom of the authorities in protecting them from disruptions to the relentless march towards paradise on earth so evident on Soviet collective farms and now in Britain’s inner-cities.

If communism was not delivering the goods then even more stringent action was needed to eradicate the source of the trouble. Since it had been scientifically proven that communism would deliver, what possible other cause could there be for failure except disruption by malcontents? If people do not actually enjoy mass immigration and the so-called ‘multiracial society’, it must surely be the work of similar malcontents. Liberal theory is flawless. Like communism, it presents itself as scientifically-based – an abundancy of pseudo-sociological tosh underpins its thinking – and dictates a historically-inevitable outcome in which we all celebrate the fact that we have as little in common with the people we live with as possible. Supposed ‘historical inevitability’ as a weapon of political language has been filched from communism and creeps into every liberal initiative. It is used, for example, to forward the European federal superstate project.

Both liberals and communists maintain that their systems can never be wrong. It is rather like the jesuitical argument that no innocent person has ever been hanged. Since all those hanged have been convicted by a court, they are by legal definition guilty! It is this feature – the refusal to admit to possible error in the theory – which makes liberalism as totalitarian in nature as communism and why it must be unmasked as the monster it really is. The rulers, too, can never be wrong since they are applying a system which can never err. They are relieved of all responsibility. Notice how no one in government within Britain today takes responsibility for anything! Blair has brought the tactic to a fine art.

How is it that white people could been so hoodwinked as many are in our country? A system which targets us for destruction is met with passivity and acquiescence. We can learn a lot from the experience of communism.

Most people assume that government is broadly competent. The latest theory must have some sense in it, people say, or it would not be introduced. New theories which claim to be idealistic enjoy an aura and are given a chance. That is what happened under communism. Sufficient people enthusiastically supported the experiment to carry along the rest – with plentiful dollops of intimidation against anyone who became too vocal in opposition. Most people, once they have passively accepted an ideas system, dislike it being challenged, since it implies criticism of their judgement. Those who draw attention to flaws provoke psychological discomfort. Anger and perplexity is a common response. None of us likes to seem made to appear foolish, and especially when merely to hear the message is thought to put us at risk. Later on no one wishes to admit that they were ever a believer.

Under communism, only the tiniest fraction of people expressed open dissent against the system. The system tried to draw in as many people as possible as accomplices. One of the most effective means was the threat that a failure to actively denounce opponents of the ideology would mean classification as a supporter.

We see this mechanism particularly clearly in a Britain where a political, police, teaching or media career means a requirement to offer regular ritual tributes to the contribution made by immigrants, and little reference to white people beyond regret at occasional backsliding from the requirement that they voluntarily marginalise themselves within the society. The most obnoxious exponents are the army of white media apparatchiks who draw a regular thirty pieces of silver in reward for stabbing their fellow white people in the backs. The most pathetic are senior police officers with their vomit-making ‘confessions’ of ‘institutional racism’ before tribunals like that of Sir William Macpherson. They resemble the unfortunates who were tortured by the Inquisition to obtain admissions about the poisoning of wells with powdered toads.

Most of the populations of the formerly communist countries now congratulate themselves on having been opponents of communism. In reality, most would have crossed the road to avoid a dissident if they had met one at the time. As a communist secret policeman told one dissenter: “You are an intelligent man. Why oppose the system when it only brings you trouble to do so”. Yet the system eventually collapsed. A small number of open doubters is no measure of the worth of a political system, or of its prospects for permanence.

Lenin’s definition of a revolutionary situation was that the rulers could no longer rule in the same way, and the ruled no longer accepted the old ways. What finished communism was precisely what brought it about, but it took a long time before the bankruptcy of the system led to such a parting of the ways between rulers and ruled.

Communism could not provide even the material things. Liberalism does better in material terms but cannot provide meaning to life and human identity. Sooner or later, the increasingly open repression of white people will lead to its fall. Liberal actions are constantly justified by the claim to be preventing inequality, but end up as a series of attacks on white people. Sooner or later, white people will use up the last of their goodwill and the national genie will leave the bottle. As under communism, even the leaders will no longer be able to believe their own lies.

One wonders what goes through the minds of leading members of the Labour Party, including Blair himself, who preach the virtues of the multiracial multicultural comprehensive school, while making sure that their own children do not attend them. The germ of doubt must eventually penetrate even their professionally duplicitous minds. Duplicity about schools is a liberal counterpart of the racket which operated under communism where special shops provided Communist Party members with luxuries unavailable to the mass of the population.

The methods by which the main political parties maintain power in Britain – largely psychological warfare involving ludicrous claims that white people are a ‘guilty race’, but also some some violence, and occasional show trials like that of Nick Griffin – will eventually no longer work. Any relaxation of control to placate the populace in those circumstances would lead to demands for more freedom and would soon be reversed, as happened under communism at the end of the Prague Spring of 1968. ‘Socialism with a human face’ would soon be no socialism at all. Liberalism with racial and cultural identity would be a contradiction. No such experiments are being tried at present in Britain. The psywar against white people continues unrelentingly 24 hours a day. Like communism, liberalism has nothing new to try in a situation of public discontent but only more of the same, which will provoke further resentment. That is its fatal internal contradiction. Reinforcement of unsatisfactory policies is the answer when the regime finds itself in difficulty.

Political correctness following the Steven Lawrence enquiry has led to a massive increase in violent street crime in London as the police retreat from enforcing the law. The Government’s answer is to increase the levels of political correctness within the police just as the communists tried to deal with unrest by reinforcing repression. The case of crime is a particularly telling example. The difficulty for liberal ideologues is that political correctness was supposed to remove resentments which were the principal cause of crime – supposedly an expression of revolt against oppression, sexism, racism and so on. What if the theory fails and measures to remove its supposed causes make it worse? The theory cannot be seen to be wrong, so the very measures which have failed must be reinforced on the basis that they have not been introduced vigorously enough! This causes more problems and resentments. Minority racial groups retreat from the multiracial project to protect themselves. The rulers are forced by their own logic to dig their own metaphorical graves.

People will eventually stop listening, no longer believe in the regime’s ability to deal with their problems, its moral legitimacy or its basic assumptions, and Lenin’s precondition for change will appear. The speed with which such watersheds can sometimes erupt was the lesson of 1989. We should not assume that change will necessarily occur in such a dramatic form in liberal Britain. What is more likely, given the temperament of the British people, is a gradual erosion of credibility attached to the regime. As with communism, a quiet subversion will undermine it, even if open revolt is impossible.

Chipping away quietly, we will, sooner or later, bring down the evil which intends a slow genocide of our people. The madmen who have taken over our country will be seen as they really are.

It is promising an “ideal world” that cannot be realized for the simple fact, that an ideal world is unrealizable. In the contrary to the Christianism it is promising this ideal world here on the Earth, during our earthly life. The real aim of Communism is to exploit masses of ordinary people and keep them humbly submitted and obedient through fear and blackmail, in order to provide an easy and luxurious life for a narrow class of the nomenklatura (people holding high positions in the governing regime and their families). Unfortunately, when you realize what is the real face of this regime, it is usually too late. The most serious damage that caused 40 years of Communism to my country is the deformation of people’s way of thinking, of their spirit. It will take at least one generation to repair this. But in spite of it, I am convinced that Communism has lost in my country for all times and will disappear in the same trash-bin of the history as Nazism did. Freedom has a very sweet taste and once you taste it, you never want to go back. Today, young people in my country perceive Communism as something assimilated to a dinosaur or any other prehistoric subject, and I do not believe that they would ever succumb to its evil charm, simply because they are no more insulated from the outside world, as the generation of my parents and mine were, they travel around the world, surf on the Web, send messages to friends with their funny cellular phones and break driving mirrors of parked cars and the windows of MacDonald’s during their Global Street Parties, exactly the same way as kids in the rest of the free world do it. They have to face insecurity, unemployment, drugs and all those things that make part of life today. This is the price that has to be paid for the democracy, and that is right because every good thing must be earned. Many people of my generation feel having been “sacrificed” in the name of the transition to a market oriented society. They do not realize that in fact the destiny offered them a very rare and precious gift: After years of submission and fear, they’ve got an opportunity to discover what is it to be free and responsible for one-self. The trouble is that the life under a Communist regime did not prepare them for it, and they feel lost. I visited many post-Communist countries and I can confirm that this is a common problem in all of them. We need the West to be patient with us and to help us not only financially, but also morally. And my personal belief is, that the best way to improve this sad situation is to offer opportunities to study and to gain a working experience abroad to our young people – because practice is always the best teacher. Speaking about a moral support, I mean the fact that the “citizen-society” is still very undeveloped in my country. We lack of experiences in this field as almost all citizen movements were forbidden under the Communist regime. And many people are still afraid to get publicly involved and feel helpless against the authorities because they haven’t realized yet, that times changed.

Have nice day,

There was a time in which the mere mention of communism struck fear in the hearts of men and women across the world. Infact, before its existence, the royalty and religious leaders of Europe and Asia despised it. Why? Because it threatened to abolish the tyranny that ruled the world for thousands of years. For the latter half of mankind’s existence, there has been a struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. If all people are equal then there can be no one to oppress or so professes the theory.

Has communism been successful? Some would say yes while others may say no. Some may say that the Soviet Union fell not because of communism, but rather as a result of the greed of a few men. Men who made themselves billionaires while leaving their citizens to starve on the streets. China is still communist but are its citizens content? It seems as if the more the working class fights for equality the more oppressed they become. Does communism not profess that it will gain equality for all? Then why do communist citizens strive to survive.

Does it have to be this way? Perhaps. Until men are able to overcome their own selfish needs and greed, until men are able to realize that no one is better than another, until men are able to overcome prejudice and racism, there will be no equality. This is why much of the world’s people suffer. This is why Soviet citizens starved on the streets. This is why communism has yet to be successful in life. It might just be that the fears of McCarthyism and the remnants of the Cold War hatreds are not because communism is evil or wrong but because the world is not yet ready for its equalities.

As the rest of this site continues, it will take you on a tour of the construction of communism as well as lead you to its modern day affects. If you have a conflicting view on the subject, please e-mail me with it so that I might be able to open my mind. Thank you and enjoy the site.

Communism did not just appear over night. It was and always has been an idea and philosophy that occasionally has been experimented with. This philosophy was probably first in Plato’s Republic and early Christian communes but has remained the same for over two thousand years. It is the idea that through working together, a community will be able to supply all of its citizens with an equal amount of food and supplies and housing. In order to obtain this, a country must first revolt against its current form of government. Ultimatley the people would be working together smoothly and not need a government with leaders. However, until communism is able to reach its ultimate point the country must be led by certain leaders. This is where the experiments have all seen there downfalls with the exception of China and Cuba. It has been because of the leaders’ hoarding of money and focusing on their own issues rather than those of the people that has led each government to eventually crumble without ever reaching its goal.

In the 19th century, two men, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, sat down in January of 1848 and began to write the Communist Manifesto. This work has been thought of as the bible of the Communist Movement. As a result of this paper, the world was enlightened by the theory. In 1917 a Czar ruled Russia began its revolution led by Vladimir Lenin. Thus was the beginning of one of the world’s largest Communist experiments to occur thus far in history.

A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.

Any ideology based on the communal ownership of all property and a classless social structure, with economic production and distribution to be directed and regulated by means of an authoritative economic plan that supposedly embodies the interests of the community as a whole. In most versions of the communist utopia, everyone would be expected to co-operate enthusiastically in the process of production, but the individual citizen’s equal rights of access to consumer goods would be completely unaffected by his/her own individual contribution to production It was expected that such a radical reordering of the economic sphere of life would also more or less rapidly lead to the elimination of all other major social problems such as class conflict, political oppression, racial discrimination, the inequality of the sexes, religious bigotry, and cultural backwardness — as well as put an end to such more “psychological” forms of suffering as alienation, anomie, and feelings of powerlessness.

The specifically Marxist-Leninist variant of socialism which emphasizes that a truly communist society can be achieved only through the violent overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” that is to prepare the way for the future idealized society of communism under the authoritarian guidance of a hierarchical and disciplined Communist Party.

1. A world-wide revolutionary political movement inspired by the October Revolution (Red Oktober) in Russia in 1917 and advocating the establishment everywhere of political, economic, and social institutions and policies modeled on those of the Soviet Union (or, in some later versions, China or Albania) as a means for eventually attaining a communist society.

a system of social organization in which property, particularly real property and the means of production, is held in common. With an uppercase C, the term refers to the movement that has sought to overthrow CAPITALISM through revolution. Forms of communism existed among various tribes of Native Americans, and it was espoused by early Christian sects. During the Middle Ages the MANORIAL SYSTEM provided communal use of the village commons and cultivation of certain fields, rights the peasants fought to retain in England (14th cent.) and Germany (16th cent.). By the early 19th cent. the rise of capitalism, reinforced by the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, had created a new industrial class living and working under appalling conditions. Utopian socialists such as Robert OWEN and Charles FOURIER, anarchists such as P.J. PROUDHON, and revolutionaries such as Auguste Blanqui all favored some kind of communal solution to this poverty. In Germany Karl MARX and Friedrich ENGELS published the Communist Manifesto (1848), the primary exposition of the doctrine that came to be known as MARXISM. It postulated the inevitability of communism arising from class war, the overthrow of capitalism, and the creation of a classless society. Marxism greatly influenced 19th-cent. SOCIALISM. The modern Communist political movement began when the Russian Social Democratic Labor party split (1903) into two factions (see BOLSHEVISM AND MENSHEVISM). The Bolsheviks, led by V.I. LENIN, called for armed revolution. After their triumph in the 1917 RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, the Bolsheviks formed the Communist party (1918), established a party dictatorship, and founded the COMINTERN (1919), which claimed leadership of the world socialist movement. In the 1930s, Joseph STALIN’s policy of socialism in one country prevailed in the USSR, but after WORLD WAR II Stalin created satellite Communist states in Eastern Europe. The Chinese Communists (see CHINA), who triumphed in 1949, aided movements in Southeast Asia. U.S. opposition to these and other actions by Soviet, Chinese, and other Commmunists led to the COLD WAR, KOREAN WAR, VIETNAM WAR, and proxy wars elsewhere, particularly in Latin America and Africa. Economic difficulties, particularly shortages of food and other consumer goods, and the resurgence of NATIONALISM led to demands for reform and internal problems in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Poland (1956, 1981), and other Communist countries, and to the often violent suppression of protest. In the 1960s Sino-Soviet relations deteriorated, and the Communist parties of Western and THIRD WORLD countries began to assert their independence of those two powers. Popular uprisings, economic collapse, and free elections ousted Communist governments in much of Eastern Europe in 1989 and 1990, and the failed hard-line coup against Soviet Pres. GORBACHEV led to the suspension of the Communist party in the USSR and the country’s subsequent disintegration in 1991. By the early 1990s traditional Communist party dictatorships held power only in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. China, Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. Communist parties, or their descendent parties, remain politically important in many Eastern European nations, in Russia and other nations of the former USSR, and elsewhere.

[See also: capitalism, socialism, ideology, egalitarianism]

Comparative advantage

Both communism and liberalism maintain with complete certainty that the destruction of the existing society will give birth to a new form of human existence at the least approaching utopia. They are what Daniel Chirot dubbed ‘tyrannies of certitude’.

A particular group of people has been responsible for blocking the happy development for centuries. In the case of communism it was capitalists, in the case of liberalism it is ‘racists’ – nearly all of whom are of course white. No! One must be harsh to build the new society and not make excuses. All white people are ‘racists’ and must pay the inevitable penalty. Few people know that the word ‘racism’ was invented by Leon Trotsky, one of the principal architects of the communist nightmare.

The rightness of the cause dictates that a political architecture of lies rather than reasoned argument is permissible if necessary to bring about the result. Since no one will willingly give up their human identity, and that is what we are being asked to do, lies will, in fact, be indispensable. The communists aimed at eradicating ‘bourgeois consciousness’. The liberals are systematically eradicating our history and identity from schools to ensure pliancy before the onslaught of anti-white bias in everything from newspapers to employment law. In this they are unlikely to succeed. The Russian and Yugoslav experience under communism has shown the persistency of racial and cultural identity.

Doubters concerning the wisdom of the new arrangements are to be hunted down and destroyed – under communism they were dubbed capitalist spies and saboteurs, under liberalism it is ‘racists’ – a sound catch-all term of abuse for any white person opposing their own marginalisation.

The ‘racists’ are well-organised and to blame for nearly everything which goes wrong according to authority, just like the ‘counter-revolutionaries, western spies and saboteurs’ in the heyday of communism. Under communism the newspapers would say ‘capitalist spy ring raided’. Under liberalism we read ‘police target racist groups’. In both cases good citizens are to congratulate themselves on the skill and wisdom of the authorities in protecting them from disruptions to the relentless march towards paradise on earth so evident on Soviet collective farms and now in Britain’s inner-cities.

If communism was not delivering the goods then even more stringent action was needed to eradicate the source of the trouble. Since it had been scientifically proven that communism would deliver, what possible other cause could there be for failure except disruption by malcontents? If people do not actually enjoy mass immigration and the so-called ‘multiracial society’, it must surely be the work of similar malcontents. Liberal theory is flawless. Like communism, it presents itself as scientifically-based – an abundancy of pseudo-sociological tosh underpins its thinking – and dictates a historically-inevitable outcome in which we all celebrate the fact that we have as little in common with the people we live with as possible. Supposed ‘historical inevitability’ as a weapon of political language has been filched from communism and creeps into every liberal initiative. It is used, for example, to forward the European federal superstate project.

Both liberals and communists maintain that their systems can never be wrong. It is rather like the jesuitical argument that no innocent person has ever been hanged. Since all those hanged have been convicted by a court, they are by legal definition guilty! It is this feature – the refusal to admit to possible error in the theory – which makes liberalism as totalitarian in nature as communism and why it must be unmasked as the monster it really is. The rulers, too, can never be wrong since they are applying a system which can never err. They are relieved of all responsibility. Notice how no one in government within Britain today takes responsibility for anything! Blair has brought the tactic to a fine art.

How is it that white people could been so hoodwinked as many are in our country? A system which targets us for destruction is met with passivity and acquiescence. We can learn a lot from the experience of communism.

Most people assume that government is broadly competent. The latest theory must have some sense in it, people say, or it would not be introduced. New theories which claim to be idealistic enjoy an aura and are given a chance. That is what happened under communism. Sufficient people enthusiastically supported the experiment to carry along the rest – with plentiful dollops of intimidation against anyone who became too vocal in opposition. Most people, once they have passively accepted an ideas system, dislike it being challenged, since it implies criticism of their judgement. Those who draw attention to flaws provoke psychological discomfort. Anger and perplexity is a common response. None of us likes to seem made to appear foolish, and especially when merely to hear the message is thought to put us at risk. Later on no one wishes to admit that they were ever a believer.

Under communism, only the tiniest fraction of people expressed open dissent against the system. The system tried to draw in as many people as possible as accomplices. One of the most effective means was the threat that a failure to actively denounce opponents of the ideology would mean classification as a supporter.

We see this mechanism particularly clearly in a Britain where a political, police, teaching or media career means a requirement to offer regular ritual tributes to the contribution made by immigrants, and little reference to white people beyond regret at occasional backsliding from the requirement that they voluntarily marginalise themselves within the society. The most obnoxious exponents are the army of white media apparatchiks who draw a regular thirty pieces of silver in reward for stabbing their fellow white people in the backs. The most pathetic are senior police officers with their vomit-making ‘confessions’ of ‘institutional racism’ before tribunals like that of Sir William Macpherson. They resemble the unfortunates who were tortured by the Inquisition to obtain admissions about the poisoning of wells with powdered toads.

Most of the populations of the formerly communist countries now congratulate themselves on having been opponents of communism. In reality, most would have crossed the road to avoid a dissident if they had met one at the time. As a communist secret policeman told one dissenter: “You are an intelligent man. Why oppose the system when it only brings you trouble to do so”. Yet the system eventually collapsed. A small number of open doubters is no measure of the worth of a political system, or of its prospects for permanence.

Lenin’s definition of a revolutionary situation was that the rulers could no longer rule in the same way, and the ruled no longer accepted the old ways. What finished communism was precisely what brought it about, but it took a long time before the bankruptcy of the system led to such a parting of the ways between rulers and ruled.

Communism could not provide even the material things. Liberalism does better in material terms but cannot provide meaning to life and human identity. Sooner or later, the increasingly open repression of white people will lead to its fall. Liberal actions are constantly justified by the claim to be preventing inequality, but end up as a series of attacks on white people. Sooner or later, white people will use up the last of their goodwill and the national genie will leave the bottle. As under communism, even the leaders will no longer be able to believe their own lies.

One wonders what goes through the minds of leading members of the Labour Party, including Blair himself, who preach the virtues of the multiracial multicultural comprehensive school, while making sure that their own children do not attend them. The germ of doubt must eventually penetrate even their professionally duplicitous minds. Duplicity about schools is a liberal counterpart of the racket which operated under communism where special shops provided Communist Party members with luxuries unavailable to the mass of the population.

The methods by which the main political parties maintain power in Britain – largely psychological warfare involving ludicrous claims that white people are a ‘guilty race’, but also some some violence, and occasional show trials like that of Nick Griffin – will eventually no longer work. Any relaxation of control to placate the populace in those circumstances would lead to demands for more freedom and would soon be reversed, as happened under communism at the end of the Prague Spring of 1968. ‘Socialism with a human face’ would soon be no socialism at all. Liberalism with racial and cultural identity would be a contradiction. No such experiments are being tried at present in Britain. The psywar against white people continues unrelentingly 24 hours a day. Like communism, liberalism has nothing new to try in a situation of public discontent but only more of the same, which will provoke further resentment. That is its fatal internal contradiction. Reinforcement of unsatisfactory policies is the answer when the regime finds itself in difficulty.

Political correctness following the Steven Lawrence enquiry has led to a massive increase in violent street crime in London as the police retreat from enforcing the law. The Government’s answer is to increase the levels of political correctness within the police just as the communists tried to deal with unrest by reinforcing repression. The case of crime is a particularly telling example. The difficulty for liberal ideologues is that political correctness was supposed to remove resentments which were the principal cause of crime – supposedly an expression of revolt against oppression, sexism, racism and so on. What if the theory fails and measures to remove its supposed causes make it worse? The theory cannot be seen to be wrong, so the very measures which have failed must be reinforced on the basis that they have not been introduced vigorously enough! This causes more problems and resentments. Minority racial groups retreat from the multiracial project to protect themselves. The rulers are forced by their own logic to dig their own metaphorical graves.

People will eventually stop listening, no longer believe in the regime’s ability to deal with their problems, its moral legitimacy or its basic assumptions, and Lenin’s precondition for change will appear. The speed with which such watersheds can sometimes erupt was the lesson of 1989. We should not assume that change will necessarily occur in such a dramatic form in liberal Britain. What is more likely, given the temperament of the British people, is a gradual erosion of credibility attached to the regime. As with communism, a quiet subversion will undermine it, even if open revolt is impossible.

Chipping away quietly, we will, sooner or later, bring down the evil which intends a slow genocide of our people. The madmen who have taken over our country will be seen as they really are.