Who Won The Cold War?

by Jerry M

At a reception for Western ambassadors in Moscow in November 1956, Nikita Krushchev declared; “whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.” In later speeches he went on to explain “Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own proletariat will bury you”. He believed that capitalism would give way to socialism in the same way feudalism was replaced with capitalism. If America doesn’t wake up he could be right.

On November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall came down, followed soon after with the complete collapse of the Soviet Union. Most Americans rejoiced believing that we had, at last, defeated Communism. Politicians gleefully rubbed their hands together and smiled in anticipation of all the extra money that would surely become available through the anticipated “peace dividend”. Money they could now spend on their favorite projects used to garner votes and keep them in power.

It is undisputable that the West won the cold war. However, communism did not cease to exist with the demise of the Soviet Union. It merely transitioned into a more dangerous form. Without the threat of the Soviet Union to focus our attention, the average American is not fully aware of the nature or severity of the danger we face. The driving forces of communism are still alive and well in the world today. They have already wreaked havoc on the economies and social structure of western Europe and today pose a very real threat to our American way of life.

The foundations of communism consists of socialism, stateism, and godless (secular) humanism. Rather than perishing or losing their influence after the fall of the Soviet empire they now provide the foundations for modern day Liberalism in the West.

Contrary to Karl Marx’s statement that “religion is the Opium of the people”, socialism is the true narcotic that enslaves and eventually destroys the social fabric of society. Wealth is the fuel of capitalism. Political power is the fuel of socialism. As members of a society become addicted to the narcotic lure of socialism they are willing to give or do almost anything to prevent the interruption of their supply of social programs. They gladly give up their political power (votes) to the politician who can keep the “fixes” coming. Their “pushers”, politicians as addicted to power as the voters are to socialism, take their political power and use it to extract wealth from the productive segment of society through confiscitatory taxation, using that wealth to pay for the social programs so desperately craved by the addicted citizen.

Unless somehow stopped this cycle of addiction will continue until all capital is drained from the productive segment of society and the entire system collapses. E.g. the Soviet Union.

Politicians consolidates and maintains their power primarily through the use of “stateism”, manifested in a number of ways. To isolate the government as much as possible from the influence of it’s citizens a concerted effort is made to shift power from local political units and consolidate it in Washington. To further shield its policies from the electorate, as much power as possible is placed in the hands of non-elected officials theoretically controlled by politicians. Two excellent examples are federal agencies and federal courts. This strategy works well in the context of a citizenry addicted to social programs and adhering to the religion of secular humanism.

As basic to human nature as the need for comfort and security is the need to believe in a deity, or a force greater than ourselves. Secular humanism channels this need away from the traditional concepts of God and directs it toward those which free its adherents from the moral constraints of traditional religion while at the same time providing a sense of serving an entity grater than themselves.

Under the old model of communism this was accomplished through a dedication to the state. Under modern day Liberalism outlets for the gratification of this need are more diverse but just as virulent. Most Liberal activists groups serve the basic purpose of gratifying it for today‘s secular humanists. None of these groups are more destructive to the security of our country than environmentalism.

Environmentalism has all the attributes of traditional religion plus the added feature most desired by socialist. Should it succeed in its efforts, it will destroy capitalism. Environmentalists of the past have focused on endangered species, their “natural” habitats and similar causes. The focus today is on global warming which promises the realization of most of its former goals, is more palatable to a gullible public, is global in scope and is perhaps the fastest way to accomplish the ultimate mission of destroying capitalism.

With all the fervor of the most religious zealot, global warming advocates ignore any opposing viewpoints they are unable to silence, although they try mightily to do so. Aside from the fact that the beliefs of global warming alarmists rest on a hypothesis and not proven scientific fact no one, to my knowledge, has attempted to answer the two most important questions regarding this controversy.

What is the optimal level of carbon dioxide and other so-called “greenhouse gases” in our atmosphere for the maximum well being of plant and animal life on the planet? Is an increase of CO² good or bad? How can we know unless we know what the ideal level should be?

The same question needs to be asked and answered about global warming. What is the ideal temperature for the earths atmosphere? And WHY?

Until these questions are answered it does not matter whether the earth is cooling, as we were warned about in the 70’s or warming as we are warned about today. Any fluctuation in temperature, whether up or down can be used by the alarmists to further the cause of environmentalism.

Since the earth’s temperature is always changing, moving up or down over the course of time those who would destroy our way of life can always use it to manipulate the behavior if enough people to do serious damage to our well being.

And then, of course, the final question: How much can we really affect global warming or greenhouse gases, or anything else about our global environment through human effort?