Finland's Struggle to Survive
Soviet Union against Finland

----- page 2 -----

Post War Eastern Europe and Finland

Plaschke, Chicago Tribune American, 1945




Yalta Conference

The eight-day Yalta Conference was held under extreme war-time secrecy at the Russian Crimean coast resort at Yalta on the Black Sea. (February 1945) The conference defined the Allied powers' policy towards Germany and gave the Soviets two-fifths of pre-war Poland. One-tenth of Finland and parts of many other countries had already contributed to Soviet expansion. The results of the conference were defined under the following headings: The defeat of Germany, The occupation and Control of Germany, Reparation by Germany, United Nations Conference, Declaration on Liberated Europe, Poland, Yugoslavia, Meetings of Foreign Secretaries, Unity for Peace as for War.

Churchill's Shame and Fears for the Future

In his famous letter of April 29, 1945 to Stalin, Churchill reveals his guilt of how he helped Stalin set up his Communist bloc: "There is not much comfort in looking into the future where you and the countries you dominate plus the Communist parties in many other states are all drawn up on one side and those who rallied to the English-speaking nations and their associates are on the other. It is quite obvious that their quarrel would tear the world to pieces and all of us leading men on either side who had anything to do with that would be shamed before history." Neither Churchill nor Roosevelt would be allowed by their own fates to negotiate the final agreements on the future of Europe at Potsdam. Roosevelt died April 12, 1945 and Churchill was replaced by Attlee July 28 when he lost the general election during the Potsdam Conference (Berlin Conference) of July 17, 1945. The big three at Potsdam were: Attlee, Truman and Stalin. Truman was new in the job. Like Roosevelt, he did not fully understand how cunning Stalin, who thought Truman was "worthless," really was.

Stalin Redraws World's Borders

The war was won and freedom reigns over all of Europe, or does it? Stalin got his share for defeating Hitler: the Baltics, Karelia and Eastern Europe. The borders of 1939 would not be reinstated in Europe.

Stalin was consuming Europe while everyone was busy dancing in the streets and proclaiming that Europe has been set "free."


The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1946 stated that Russia grew considerably:
"In the years between 1939 and 1945 the USSR expanded its territory considerably. It annexed in Europe the three Baltic republics of:
Estonia (18,353 sq. mi = 47,534.05 sq. km, population 1,126,413)
Latvia (20,056 sq. mi = 51,944.8 sq. km, population 1,950,502)
Lithuania (22,959 sq. mi = 59,463.54 sq. km, population 2,879,070)
From Finland:
(16,173 sq. mi = 41,887.88 sq. km, population c. 500,000)
From Poland:
(77,703 sq. mi = 201,249.8 sq. km, population c. 12,775,000)
From Romania:
(19,300 sq. mi = 49,986.77 sq. km, population 3,500,000)
From Czechoslovakia:
In 1945 Soviet Union added to its territory the Carpatho-Ukraine, (12,617 sq. mi = 32,677.88 sq. km, population 725,357)
From Germany, the northern part of East Prussia.
(c. 7,000 sq. mi = 18129.92 sq. km, population c. 1,000,000)
From Japan, Karafuto (South Sakhalin)
(13,935 sq. mi = 36,091.40 sq. km, 1935 population 331,943)
From Japan, Chushima or Kuril Islands (47 islands of 3,944 sq. mi. = 10214.91 sq. km)
From Outer Mongolia, Tannu-Tuva.
(64,000 sq mi = 165,759.2 sq. km) Became Tuvanian Autonomous Region.

Further, since Germany attacked USSR, the German Volga A.S.S.R. was abolished and the inhabitants dispersed in Siberia."

Communism and Finland
Did you know that communism is alive and well in Russia, and even Finland? These dangerous people will one day want to kill all the educated people, all they are waiting for is another opportunity to do so. Their heads are so full of Marxist brainwashing that they will not see the evidence of history, i.e. that the concept is brutal, anti-individual and besides will not work in practise and all those people sacrificed were in vain - for nothing!

The Communist ideology is one of the collective, the majority - not the individual. The individual's value is merely in serving the collective, which excercises total control over him, where he goes, what he does, life or death like "Survivor" - vote your friend to get a bullet in the back of the head, be sent off to slave labor or an insane asylum. If he's a good boy or girl, he gets cookies from the collective, otherwise nothing. It is a philosophy based on greed, which caused the revolution in the first place. Greed of others being more educated, having a bigger house, owning a business... The simplistic, satanic message of envy and greed is: "if you killed these people who are oppressing you, you would be like them, rich." (sounds familiar) These people had to be killed, their businesses confiscated and put to serve the masses. A few years later, the equipment is old and everything is run down but remaining in "business" long after it should have been renovated or closed down.

The fact is, not everyone has the skills to run businesses, therefore workers and business owners should cooperate, not exterminate. A balance or pact must be struck between labor and management. People cannot be forced to produce; civil disobedience, passive resistance, nonviolence and strikes as a last resort are the answer - not revolution. Violence does not solve anything, it does not beget anything but more violence.

Why won't communists change? Because all the evils were not their fault, but the fault of other some person or persons. They cannot see that their very concept makes the evils inevitable. Many Russians complain that they suffered just as much as those Stalin oppressed. Well, maybe so, but they don't take any responsibility for any of it. All the killings, it wasn't their fault. Did they stop those who came in the middle of the night for a neighbor? Probably not. There were no general strikes. The workers did not unite against this practise. They were probably afraid for their own skins. They should have known that killing is wrong, unless someone is coming at you with a weapon at that moment. But they bought the lie that killing is OK if it serves the revolution, like some violent religious groups today. Blame someone else and continue to make the same mistakes - this is what communists always think. They suffered from what, their own ignorance or Stalin? Did the Germans suffer from their own ignorance or Hitler? These are philosophical questions and everyone has their own ideas. Communism doesn't work like it does in a marxist daydream, and it never will. Communists tried and tried, doing the same things over and over, expecting a different result, without success. If Finland were to become communist, it would not be long before Finland would cease to exist as a nationality, language, culture. But that is exactly what communists want, because they want the world to be one, like John Lennon wrote: "imagine there's no country..." It is simply an illusion that is sold and bought by those believing in the impossible: that everyone can be equal, the world can be as one. What is happening to the Karelian culture, is what would happen to the Finnish culture. Russians would be moved into Finland, as in Estonia, to "help" and soon the country would be bilingual, the first step towards oblivion. Whichever social group is of the majority, will push their policies on the minorities. The powerful central govenment of Russia could do as it wished with Finland. If Finland were to become communist, she would have been joined to the holy of holies for communists: mother Russia.

Otto Wille Kuusinen was a Finn and a communist, whose heart lay not in Finland, but in mother Russia, not in the Finnish language, but the Russian language. He wrote about and advocated revolution to crush the capitalist class in Finland. He served as minister of education in the red government during the civil war. When the reds lost he escaped to Russia where he rose in power and even escaped the purges. Thousands of his Finnish countrymen were shot in purges in Karelia, having come there from all around the world thinking they were finally about to arrive in paradise. He did nothing to stop it, in fact he encouraged it. He had no feeling whatsoever towards fellow Finns, which is typical. They are only faithful to their glorious cause: Marxist-Leninism, which produced the largest concentration camp in history: Soviet Union. During the Winter War, (1939-40) he was head of the puppet Terijoki government. Kuusinen

While Churchill was defending Jews from Hitler’s death camps, Eastern Europeans were being turned over to Stalin’s death camps. Many non-Soviet citizens were among them, such as fleeing Czarist Cossacks shipped back to Jugoslavia and shot, Russian POW's and ordinary Soviet Citizens. It was unbelievable, there was nobody to stand up against Stalin and protect the vulnerable in lands bordering the Soviet Union. In fact they were turned over to Stalin at gun-point in many cases.


In his book "The Minister and the Massacre" and "The secret betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, he reveals the horror of the forced repatriations to the USSR by the British and Americans. Most of it is his original research into the cover-up. "If the moral and political wisdom of the so-called civilized and Christian West is of such a kind, then God help Europe and the world" says Colonel Tatalovic, in response to a Chetnik staff officer’s queries. Between 1944 and 1947 the Western Allies handed over to Stalin more than two million Soviet citizens. This was what Roosevelt called "free Europe."

Information about "The secret betrayal"

Fate of Eastern Europe

Lists of people to be killed or imprisoned were made by local Communist traitors in Finland (Leino), Czechoslovakia (Gottwald), Hungary (Rakosi), DDR (Pieck), Bulgaria (Dimitrov), Poland, Romania, Albania, and Yugoslavia. The first step was to install a Communist minister of the interior (government police) and to infiltrate all political parties, and then to take each one over by force. The plan succeeded in all above countries except Finland. This answers the question most people in the West have: was Finland part of the "Soviet Union?" Of course the answer is "no." Although there has always been Communist traitors in Finland who have wanted to take away Finnish independence and join their Russian Communist brethren, this never materialized. I suppose they dreamed that if this happened, they would be in charge. However history shows that they were wrong and most likely they would have ended up with a hole in the back of their heads.

Lists of Finns who would have been killed or sent to Siberia have been made public. The lists are very long - for example: (Notice that if you are educated, the communists wanted you dead.)

Aalto, Pertti 1917, yo "ylioppilas," (high school graduate) Hki (Helsinki),

Arvela, Jorma Joonas Emil 1914 metsänhoitaja, (forester) Taivalkoski
Arvela, Arvo Väinö 1910 Lääkäri (physician) Hki
Harviainen Mauri Mikael 1914 Pappi (Lutheran minister) Kuopio
etc.

Hundreds, thousands of people would be killed or sent to Siberia by evil people, some of whom mistakenly think that is the way to create a better world - a socialist paradise. To them, the end justifies the means. The Slavs are a rather rough type of people anyway, discipline is a harsh thing amongst them, and their vassals. Children are "broken" by schools and then in the military. Mistakes are punished severely, often by execution, and life becomes a privilege bestowed by the Party. People become cattle, to be fenced in and owned by the "State Cattle Co." Due to fear, action becomes paralyzed, alcoholism consumes the population. The system collapses, but not until millions suffer and die needlessly. This is done for a desperate, illusive, dream of Utopia. The Communist ideal has been thoroughly disproved.

The Finnish economy has always been the envy of Russia, whose people were not capable of developing such prosperity, and definitely not under communism.


The Communist cannot understand how Finland can prosper like it does. He asks: "how is it possible," since the workers are "exploited?" How is it possible that their store shelves are overflowing, and ours are almost always empty? How can the exploited go around driving nice American, Swedish, German or Japanese cars when we have to wait years for a Lada? The exploited eat in fine restaurants, or McDonald's, and shop in megastores overflowing with food, while we socialists stand in lines for a loaf of bread? Have we missed something?


This is a worker’s paradise? Not likely. But you have to admit that while the people are standing in lines, they are substantially under control. If you have any doubts about which is better, (millions still believe in socialism, but it comes in fancy disguises today, even "Democracy") socialism or capitalism, you don't have to argue with me about politics. You can ask a person who has lived under both, and any fancy utopian ideals will vanish very quickly. Some people you could talk to are: Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Mongolians, Estonians and so on. Ask them how they were treated 1) by the Russians 2) by the Communists, and if they would volunteer for more. Unfortunately there are millions who cannot speak for themselves for they have been in their graves for a long time now.


Some feel that capitalism is destroying the planet, while socialism is friendly, not only to people, but also to the environment. Not true. To clean up the environment you need money - lots of money. Only capitalism, the people friendly variety not dominated by multinationals, produces enough surplus money to make a significant dent in pollution. A lack of funds and fear prevents positive action in a socialist country, most of which are ecological disasters. Likewise, socialism destroys minorities, for example the Soviet minority policy. Just take a trip to Russia. Socialism is the most vicious, brutal, godforsaken ideology on the planet, which promises the world but delivers slavery and misery. It is evil through and through, but puts up a glorious front which appeals to the lazy and radical elements. They certainly are not made up of humanitarians, and we do not see them out there helping the sick and poor of the world except with the barrel of a gun. Take that anyway you like. As for Russia, the socialists are still there, waiting until capitalism has reestablished the economy, ready to offer their misery to other unsuspecting people.


Did the United States escape the communist threat to freedom? Not a chance. Communism does not present itself as such anymore, but many of its ideas permeate the system.


Marxists told the masses that all their problems came from their constant class struggle and they would be rich if only they were not impeded by the bloodsucking Capitalists. The problem is, once begun murder tends to continue and even escalate. So they arrested even those who helped with the revolution and delighted in making them suffer the cruelest kinds of tortures you can imagine. This was imposed upon 10-25% of the population, which made it a system straight from the pit of hell.

The Finnish Communist party luckily just couldn't get it together at the right moment in history, because for one thing, they were fighting amongst themselves. Finland missed out on going down the path of Russia and Eastern Europe. This was the second and last time the Finnish communists and their brothers, the Russian Bolsheviks, had a chance to overthrow the democratically elected government, the first being in 1918. General Mannerheim crushed this with some help from the Germans.

The elections of 1945 were especially important and 74.9% of Finns voted, with 30 divisions of Russians waiting on the other side of the border just to help the people make their decision. They did succeed in getting the communist minister of the interior (Yrjö Leino) in power for 3 1/2 years, but a communist takeover was not in the cards. The Czechoslovakian road would not be that of the Finns.

Those on the lists were disposed of in the aforementioned countries - a horrible fate to survive the war and have that happen. And a plot was also underway in Finland by Yrjö Leino, who was the chief of Valpo, Finland's secret police agency. He was building an army of communist police to "fight post-war crime," and preparing to seize power in Finland. However, the two main players, Yrjö Leino and Aaltonen were feuding, and eventually the whole thing collapsed as Leino lapsed into alcoholism and fell out of favor with Moscow. In 1948 the Finnish parliament deposed Leino for his anti Finnish activities. Simultaneously, the West's outcry against what was going on in the Czech Republic caused the Russians to back off in Finland. It was a close call for Finland.

The Allies, as a result of Stalin's insistence, criminalized Finland's war with the Soviet Union, and demanded imprisonment for those responsible. A retroactive law, against the Finnish Constitution, had to be passed to proceed with the tribunal which was obliged to sentence President Ryti, wartime Prime Ministers J.W. Rangell and Edwin Linkomies, Foreign Minister Henrik Ramsay, Ministers Väinö Tanner, Antti Kukkonen and Tyko Reinikka, as well as Minister T.M. Kivimäki, the wartime envoy to Berlin, to prison. Mannerheim, who had accepted the presidency, now resigned in solidarity.

J.K. Paasikivi became the president in 1947 and set a course of foreign policy, which included uncompromisingly clinging to independence while at the same time keeping the Soviets happy. He even turned down Marshall aid from the U.S. Where was the aid when Finland really needed it in 1944, when the Allies marched the Karelians out and the Russians in? It wasn't just that Finland wanted to instill confidence in the USSR, but the Finns are proud and independent. Accepting aid after what the Allies did to the Finnish people would be out of character.

Urho Kekkonen became president in 1956, and would be in power for 25 years. This Paasikivi-Kekkonen line became a synonym for Finland's foreign policy.

In 1948 Finland concluded a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance with the USSR The clause calling for mutual assistance takes effect if another state uses Finland to attack the USSR and such aid would not be automatic, but only after negotiations. (good luck)

Patriotic National Alliance - The Finnish watchdog group that demands the return of properties taken by Russia, and protests a Finnish government denial of territorial disputes - a prerequisite for EU membership granted Finland in 1995. They also wish to raise awareness in the international community about the selling out of Finland's territorial sovereignty in any secret agreements by others i.e.. Finnish national interests during bilateral talks. This attitude by the Finnish people is why Finland is free today instead of a vassal of Russia. It is an attitude that the Finnish press refers to as "nationalistic." They are the "Varangian Guard" of Finland today in a time when national interests are ending up on the chopping block of European and world politics. National interests must now be subordinated to the collective. Will it be only a matter of time that EU police begin to enforce free thought, as in the USSR? Free thought was not supressed there either right away.

Russia continues its course of self-inflicted misery and strife, which it is willing to share with any people luckless enough to end up in its colonial clutches. After that begins the transformation, of peaceful happy people with their own language, into servants of the master, stripped of language and identity. Should the World Bank finance this, or emancipation and restoration? The resources required to just keep this unholy union together prevents the country from moving ahead. The Finns have a head start in understanding the Russian mentality, which is why they knew that Stalin was lying to the Finns in 1939. They knew that the Russians love to toy with lies and make others prove they are false.


It is such a tragedy that Stalin's Allies did not do anything for the millions that waited for their assistance, which never came, because Stalin demanded to have them in his "sphere of influence." (Synonym for oppressing these people by meddling in their internal affairs) He asked for and got to be the curse of millions. It was a supreme quirk of history to see the Allies standing together, pointing west in the sunset of justice and truth, telling the Karelians to get out of their own country like they were some kind of illegal aliens. It was as if reality was suddenly affected by some virus, where nobody knew what was right anymore, that this could be allowed in the name of justice. But still the Finns act friendly to the Russians, Americans, and British; there are no terrorists, no protests, just peace - and that's what the tolerant Finns really always wanted when they were forced to defend themselves, without assistance from the Western powers. When it was over, the Finns were smart enough to realize the truth: that rebuilding and healing cannot take place in bitterness and anger, but "forgiveness." Perhaps there is a lesson there for the rest of the world. Can the Russians, despite themselves being demonstrably unreliable, hope for a trustworthier neighbor?

Whatever became of the beautiful sandy beaches of the Finnish Riviera? The Soviets destroyed the beauty of Terijoki, and even trucked off much of the beautiful sand for construction, leaving behind a rubble of rocks. What a bitter fate for such a beautiful place enjoyed by free, happy people who became scattered all over the world.

Soviet System had the seeds of its own destruction


Encyclopaedia Britannica Prints Soviet Disinformation

From the Russian point of view, Karelia, Finland and the Baltics (and who knows what other areas) have always been Russian. They claim Viipuri (Vyborg) has always been Russian, except it was in the "possession of the Finns between 1920 - 39." Since Viipuri is the writer's parental hometown, he can say without fear of contradiction, that this is an outright lie. In 1721 1721 Russia managed to occupy parts of Finland, including Viipuri for some time but the city was never considered to be a Russian city, (just under Russian control for some time) being populated mainly by Finnish speaking Karelians and Finns. Even when Finland was a Grand Duchy of Russia, it was a special arrangement. Finland, and Viipuri, did not "belong" to Russia. It was a special deal just between the Czar and the Finnish people. To travel to Finland, a Russian still needed to obtain the permission of Finland. Therefore, Viipuri could not under any stretch of the imagination have been a Russian city although they managed to move the border to the west of the city for some time. Unfortunately, the Encyclopaedia Britannica has taken the Russian view of Finnish history - a great error and injustice to the Finnish people. The Finnish foreign ministry, which states that this is a great shame to this "knowledge" base, is correcting this situation. It is about time Britain and United States stood up for the smaller European countries they released to the care of Stalin. By correcting Soviet revisionism, they can make a start. Länsipuro, who is correcting the errors, says it looks like it is straight from the Soviet "Bolshaja Sovjetskaja Entsiklopediasta." The errors are also propagated on the Internet versions of the encyclopedia. Also included in this is Soviet propaganda about the ceded territories!

Many Russians claim the entire North for themselves on historical and racial grounds. Demin, a Russian writer, even declares that the "Finnish epic Kalevala is "Russian" and Finns were "indeed" a Slavic population. There were many such crazy fantasies of Russians, like whole Kola and Maanselkä areas were inhabited by Russians and Finno-Ugrics were just an ethnographic part of the Slavic nation. I suppose this book was created for such Nazi-Russian organizations, like "Russian National Unity" or "Congress of Russian Communities".

The foreign ministry of Finland has had to fix many similar disinformations in European schoolbooks. And this work to correct Soviet disinformation in all Western institutions continues by the foreign ministry.



    Karl Marx in Hell
    by Bob Wallace

    Interviewer: It's nice of you to take time out from your busy
    schedule for an interview.
    Marx: Believe me, I can use the break.

    Interviewer: Really? So tell me, what's Hell like? I don't see any demons, no flames, no lakes of boiling lead, no being jabbed with tridents.
    Marx: Naw, that's not how it is. What Hell is really about is seeing all your handiwork. In my case, I had to sit here and watch the 20th century pass by. Do you know about 200 million people were murdered because of my ideas? I had to watch that. Now that's Hell.

    Interviewer: You mean you've given up your beliefs?
    Marx: Every one of them. Hey, I've had a lot of time to think.

    Interviewer: Interesting. Could you give me some specifics as to why you're wrong?
    Marx: Well, for only thing, I got human nature completely wrong. Completely backwards, actually. I didn't realize that human nature has both good and bad in it. You can say, roughly speaking, that a liberal is someone who thinks human nature is good and society, bad. A conservative thinks the opposite; human nature is bad and society, good, because it represses all the bad in human nature. A liberal usually thinks that if you get rid of oppressive society, then all the natural, innate goodness of people will automatically bloom. I thought if society was changed, along socialist lines, then the essential "goodness" of human nature would automatically turn all of us into gods. The exact opposite happened. Socialism appeals not to the best in human nature, but the worst: greed, envy, hate, theft, murder. It appeals to the animal in us, the bad part. Civilization, I realize now, is just a thin, fragile film on top of a lot of badness in people. And civilization is easily destroyed. And socialism will always destroy it. Socialism believes that State should control everything. But when the State controls everything, the absolute worst the ambitious, power-mad and amoral rise to the top. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot....all of them socialists.

    Interviewer: Socialism appeals to the worst in us? Could you expand on that?
    Marx: Socialism is based on envy, which is without a doubt the most trouble-making feeling in the world. Let's look at the story of The Garden of Eden. The serpent is actually a symbol of envy, and he wants to bring Adam and Eve down because he envies the fact they are favored by God. That's what envy always does, attempts to bring people down. So he talks Eve into breaking the rules, and she talks Adam into it. When they're caught, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. I think the story makes the most sense if you consider them to be about five years old, neither taking responsibility for their actions and instead blaming someone else. What this story shows is that envy is responsible for people blaming others for their problems. It's scapegoating. "It's because of you that I'm poor. Because you're rich, I live in poverty." Envy leads to murder, theft, greed...all kinds of horrible things. It's always about trying to level everyone and make everyone the same, so no one will be better than anyone else. This, of course, is impossible. The only way people can be the same is if they're identical, like two pennies. Only if you're completely identical can everyone be the same. In the Garden, envy is ultimately what brings evil into the world. One of the Ten Commandments prohibits envy, and the first murder Cain and Abel was because of envy. So socialism, since it is based on envy, will always lead to terrible tragedies.

    Interviewer: Then there's no hope for socialism?
    Marx: None whatsoever. It's evil to the core. Socialists should stop trying to change society and change themselves. That's the problem, really. They're flawed as we all are but they blame their problems on society. That's human nature, to blame your problems on someone else. No society is perfect, but a socialist society is the least perfect of all of them. I now realize socialism is a truly childish system, one that creates children instead of adults. Do you know what Thomas Hobbes said? "The evil man is the child grown strong." People like Hitler and Stalin weren't adults. They were children. For that matter, I never grew up, either. I was a child all my life, blaming my problems and the world's on "capitalism." If I had been born rich there never would have been a Marxism. I admired only aristocrats, anyway. I used to wear a monocle and go on fox-hunts. All socialists, deep down inside, know they're wrong. They can't admit it because of self-deception. That's why they keep trying socialism over and over, even though it never works. "Just one more time, then we'll make it work." One of the saddest but most true definitions of insanity I've ever heard is "to try the same thing over and over and expect a different result."

    Interviewer: So it's a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?
    Marx; Yes, that's true. Do you know I've actually seen The Who a couple of times from down here? I'm so far away I've never gotten a good view of them, though.

    Interviewer: Let's discuss your ten-point system for changing society. Could you go through them and explain why they're wrong?
    Marx: Sure. Let's take the first one, "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes." If no one owns the land, then everyone will exploit it, because they think if they don't someone else will. It's called "the tragedy of the commons." And that's exactly what happens. People really only take care of things when they own them. I realize now that private property is the most important basis for civilization. Then there's the second, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." One of the problems with this is that when you tax people's money away, they'll cease to work, save and invest. This is why when taxes are cut, the economy always gets better, and when taxes are raised, it always gets worse.

    Interviewer: What about the third, "Abolition of all rights of inheritance"?
    Marx: Why should people build up a business if they can't give it to their children? And as for the fourth, "confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels," a rebel is only defined as what the State doesn't like. As for emigrants, the only time there is mass emigration is when the country absolutely stinks as a place to live. How many people are trying to get into America as compared to those trying to get out? And they sure aren't going to be productive immigrants, not if they believe all they own will be stolen if they ever leave, or even if they stay.

    Interviewer: And the fifth?
    Marx: "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." When this happens the central bank what you call the Federal Reserve always inflates the money supply. This causes a fake economic boom. When it's over, you get recession and unemployment. What's little known is that the first people to get the inflated money, they prosper and buy everything up. The last people to get the money get devalued money and can't buy much. Your dollar has lost about 99% of its purchasing power in the last 100 years, because of inflation. You have a small amount of enormously wealthy people. You know one of the reasons why? It's because they were the first to get their hands on the inflated money. Without inflation, there are far fewer very rich, and far fewer very poor.

    Interviewer: And the sixth, "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state"?
    Marx: Ah, yes. People only get to hear or read or watch what the State allows. That's an attempt to brainwash people, to turn them into little robots who don't understand their country and the State are two totally different things. They think "patriotism" means defending the State. It means defending your country. Of all the wars you've been in, how many were to defend an attack on your country, and how many were to defend the State's interests? As for the "transport" part, that ultimately means you can only live where the State wants you to.

    Interviewer: The seventh?
    Marx: "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan." All of them have the same fatal flaw: you're supposed to work and give everything to someone else. No one's going to do that. Everyone ends up thinking, "Why should I work if no one else is?" So everyone is poor. One of the best definitions of capitalism and socialism I've heard is, "capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth and socialism the the equal distribution of poverty." The eighth? "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially to agriculture." Under the free market, if you don't work, you don't eat. Under socialism, if you work, you still don't eat. I guess there's some humor there, if you look hard enough. "Industrial armies." Armies are for war, not peace.

    Interviewer: What about the ninth, "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country"?
    Marx: Only the free market can decide what business should be combined. Combining agriculture with manufacturing? Exactly how? I didn't think that one out too well, did I? As for abolishing the distinction between town and country, this can only be done if you shuffle people around at the point of a gun. Under this, people have to live where the State wants them to live.

    Interviewer: What about the tenth?
    Marx: "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc." There's no such thing as free education. People always pay for it out of their taxes. That's a curious trait of humanity. They think if it's from the government, it's free. They often don't realize the money can only be taken from someone else and given to them. It's theft, really. Public schools? They mean bureaucracies, with the resulting destruction of creativity, imagination and learning. Bureaucracies are a terrible thing, only most people don't know it. One of the reasons Alexander the Great was so successful is that when he conquered a place he left the bureaucracies in place. Bureaucracies can bring civilizations down. What do you think they'll do to public schools, given enough time? When children's factory labor was abolished, those children no longer had a way to make a living. Which is worse, a crummy job, or starving and homeless? The one about education and industrial production wasn't too bad, as long as the free market does it, and voluntarily. When the State does it, either you do what the State says, or else.

    Interviewer: One last question. Is Hell eternal?
    Marx: No, it's not. You just have to wait until all the bad things you've done have disappeared. When the day comes when not one person is the world believes in what I wrote, then I can leave.

    Interviewer: Any idea when that day might come?
    Marx: Your guess is as good as mine. But I do think it's going to be a long, long time.

    Interviewer: Thank you, Karl Marx.
    Marx: You're welcome.

    December 18, 2001
    Bob Wallace, a former newspaper reporter and editor,
    and an incurable lover of puns, lives in St. Louis.

The purpose of this information is to disclose to the world what really happened during Stalin's reign of terror in the North, of which Finland became a victim, along with half of Europe. If we can understand why things went the way they did, perhaps something like that will never happen again, and God willing, some results can be corrected.

But with what some call a " James Bond Villain " like Vladimir Putin, we may have to wait. Now the United States is Russia's pal again. But time will tell how much "friendship" there really is. Is Russia now suddenly reformed after 1000 years in the long term and 70+ years recently? Does history repeat itself, or are there really new paradigms in store for Russia? What a novel idea: Russia becomes civilized.

One of the major problems in the past was Russia's constant interference in the Baltic countries. This apparently is still causing problems, and Putin is the fellow doing it with veiled threats and comments. Putin the Terrible. The Russian people approve of Putin.



Communism Murdered 100,000,000 people. Now condemned by EU.


FINLAND IN THE NEWS

CRIME RATES JUMP 100% AMONGST IMMIGRANTS TO FINLAND

Some highlights out of the survey of Ministry of Interior concerning crimes committed by foreigners/immigrants in Finland. Most of these criminals came in under the former president Ahtisaari's watch, who was the one who started bringing in Somalis. The problem could be much worse when these people become marginalized and they start blaming the infidels for their problems - which might drive them to the Radical Islam camp. Muslims do not want to integrate into any country; they want to be where there are other Muslims. Could a city in Finland one day have 70% Muslims like Dearborn Michigan? The undeclared war begun by Muslim extremists has shifted the focus from ethnicity to religiosity. We may not have any particular country as a foe in future wars, but the enemy might be of a certain persuation. Since 1194, Muslim violent expansion has been thwarted by violence eg. Teutonic Knights, but resistance to this expansion no longer exists for political reasons. The question that looms ahead is, does Islam have an agenda, and if so what is it? Will Finland help to further the goals of world Islam? If emigration helps to spread Islam, then Finland is helping to spread it. Islam

Radical Islam by Hal Lindsey.

Finland's folly has been its immigration policy, for world political motives, which has reduced the quality of life of Finns with increased violent crime rates. Finnish authorities kept track of minority crime until told to stop by the president. In these studies, Somalis committed the most violent crimes thusfar.

The amount of robberies increased from the year 1999 to 2000 by 14 percent, but robberies done by foreigners/immigrants increased by 100 percent. Sexual crime figures show that about 8 percent of sexual crimes were committed by foreigners/immigrants, whose percentage of the population is 2 percent.

The Ministry of Interior has decided not to make this kind of special surveys on crimes committed by foreigners/immigrants in the future. Why? Because it might make the Finns angry and protests against immigration might increase.

Ten most suspected ethnic groups in violent crimes in the year 2000:
Nationality / Amount of crimes
Finnish...........408
Somalian........308
Russian..........181
Not known.....165
Iraqi................148
Estonian.........134
Jugoslavian...119
Vietnamese....119
Turkish..........111
Swedish..........103

From these absolute figures one can calculate percentages, given the total population of Finland (5.2 million), amount of Somalian citizens (4190), and so on.

Sources:
http://www.intermin.fi/

Links

Books on this topic
Stalin's Death Camps
Forced Repatriation by British and Americans of Freedom seeking people, back to Stalin.
Collapse of Soviet Union Why the Soviet Union Collapsed.
Stalin's White Sea Death Camps Solovetskii Death Camps inspired Hitler.
Forced Repatriation How the British and Americans participated in the great evil of Stalinism.
Museum of Communism
St. Petersburg Chronicle of 1998
Good bye Karelia - Antti's story
Ladoga 1941- Antti Joronen's Exclusive Photo Gallery

Books and Videos Czar to Stalin + International movie database

The Baltics
Baltic Security Conference
soc.culture.baltics


Back to Empire Strikes

Search:
Keywords:
In Association with Amazon.com