By JÖRG WOLLSCHLÄGER | In an article [link], Der Spiegel compares the German Minister of Economics, Habeck, with the dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, who let Romanians starve and freeze in a repressive slave system [link].
What parallels are there between the systematic impoverishment and impoverishment policy of the FRG leadership and communist Romania? Are politicians right to panic?
Bärbock warns of popular uprisings
Citizens should prepare themselves for drastic restrictions in their quality of life due to the artificially created energy crisis, that’s what the newspapers have been saying for weeks. The city of Ludwigsburg is preparing heat shelters for the population, and there is also talk of a nationwide power blackout [link].
It is possible that the political decision-makers have the feeling that the citizens are not ready to adjust to real socialist conditions. In an INSA survey, 53 % of those questioned did not agree to the interruption or regulation of the hot water supply or the heating temperature [link].
In addition, there is the rising cost of living and exploding energy prices. 44% of citizens are „certain or very likely to take part in demonstrations against the high energy prices“; as a precaution, the Minister of the Interior has already declared such protests to be right-wing extremist [link]. The party’s own clientele, supporters of the Left Party, are ready to take to the streets together with AfD and FDP voters, which exposes the politician’s Nazi framing as an absurdity [link].
The increase in energy prices will be followed by an unprecedented, deliberately induced, collapse of the economy with mass unemployment and, as a result of inflation and increased transport costs, an excessive increase in food prices. Famine and conditions like those after the First and Second World Wars could be the result.
Wer in #Deutschland die verheerenden Folgen der Fehlleistungen der Regierung kritisiert, macht nicht etwa von seinem demokratischen Recht Gebrauch, sondern verachtet die Demokratie? #Faeser redet wie in einem totalitären Regime! #SPD t.co/zjj2Jvl2U6
— Storymakers (@mz_storymakers) July 17, 2022
Bärbock even warned in an interview of popular uprisings in connection with the delivery of the turbine for Nord Stream 2, which is a prerequisite for the continued flow of gas supplies:
„The Canadians said, ‚we have a lot of questions‘, so we said, ‚we can understand that, but if we don’t get the gas turbine, then we won’t get any more gas, and then we won’t be able to provide any support for Ukraine at all, because we’ll be busy with popular uprisings.“
Analena Bärbock, 20 July 2022, link
At the same time, the state’s tax revenues are exploding, with which new ideological insanity can be financed. Compared to the same period of the previous year, the first quarter of 2022 saw a whopping 17.6% increase in revenue [link]. A further provocation of the people is the announcement of emergency decrees, which Habeck justifies with „we are in the fifth month of war“.
Foreseeable is an energy shutdown to deal another severe blow to the economy after the Corona chaos. At the same time, citizens are to be subjected to even stronger state repression than during the Corona crisis; the police will also invade the private sphere („cold police“) in order to enforce the policy’s measures of restraint [link].
Is the impoverishment and humiliation just an implementation error in the numerous failed social experiments as leftist apologists keep claiming? Will it certainly work next time? Or are hardship and misery for the people even the actual goal of all socialist and communist forms of rule?
What is the real goal of communism ?
The aim of communism is the dispossession of the people in order to force them into a state of total subjugation and dependence. Marx put it this way:
In this sense, the theory of the communists can be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, link
Who are the people to be made dependent on? Despite all the class struggle rhetoric, it is only about enabling the elite circles of the high and financial aristocracy behind the mask of communism to radically expand their power at the expense of the middle class [link, link]. Classically, expropriation is the communists‘ favourite means of giving a handful of ultra-rich people control over the people’s property. In this way they can achieve extremely profitable state monopolies and reap extreme profits through socialist slave labour. At the same time they cause the most damage and suffering and misery to the „class enemies“. Just coincidence?
„We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white Negroes on whom we will impose a tyranny such as the most terrible despots of the East could never have dreamed of. The only difference is that it will be a left tyranny and not a right tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one.“
Leon Trotsky in Aron Simanovich’s „Rasputin: The Memoirs of his Secretary“, link
Less conspicuous are inflation (currency devaluations) or tax increases and impositions that serve to destroy the existence of small and medium-sized enterprises and thereby keep competition at bay from the appendages of the banks, the corporations. How aloof and unworldly was the communist regime under Ceaușescu? Have the Greens also completely lost their grip on reality with their ban hysteria and unrealistic ideology?
„Son of the sun“ and „our earthly god“.
In typical communist delusion, Ceaușescu was worshipped by court poets with titles such as „Titan of Titans“ or „Son of the Sun“; he was also considered „the Chosen One“, „our earthly God“ or „Genius of the Carpathians“. His domineering wife had herself celebrated as a „bold scientist and explorer, with international recognition all over the globe“. Finally, Ceaușescu raised his son Nicu Ceaușescu to the throne, announcing the transition to a communist monarchy.
The Stalinist made his people foot the bill for oversized prestige projects like the luxurious Palace of Parliament. The murderous state police, the Securitate, was particularly hated. The children’s gulags were also a nasty chapter: disabled children and those of poor parents were tortured there under inhumane conditions. Due to the economy of scarcity common under communism, the people starved, also because the „village destruction programme“ to establish agro-industrial complexes (collective farms) was a failure. Electricity cut-offs became common, Spiegel writes in its article that the people had to freeze at 12 C. Does the comparison with Ceaușescu hold water? What about communist cadres in the FRG?
Takeover of the Greens by K‑groups
The programme of left-wing politics, regardless of party colour, is the achievement of socialism, which is also supposed to be only a stage towards the supposedly paradisiacal final goal, communism. In addition to the established left parties, a whole fauna of communist groups exists throughout the German-speaking world. Their parareligious tendency towards sectarianism and fragmentation also contributes to this „diversity“. Examples are the Marxist-Lenist Party of Germany (MLPD), Red October, Red Flag (MLPÖ) and several others [link]. These parties were never conceived as mass movements, but as cadre parties and Masonian conspiratorial secret societies with Jesuitical rituals of submission and cadre obedience [link]. The task of the cadres is to infiltrate and ideologically assimilate other groups. One of these is the Greens.
„They were citizen children, but not ’sheltered citizen children‘, but ‚broken citizen children‘. They were seekers. […] Through Marxism and the organisations they founded, they could live out fantasies of power or violence, compensate for their own lack of orientation, satisfy their need for recognition or for belonging to a group,“ Hinck sums up. If Scientology had been in vogue instead of Marxism, „they might have joined Scientology en masse or founded similar sects“.
Gunnar Hink, link
Green on the outside, red on the inside: model Trotsky and Khmer Rouge
This approach, also called entrism, is particularly pronounced among the Trotskyists, who are even more radical than the Stalinists and strive for a permanent revolution. Who have the left-wing politicians taken as their model?
„We mean the word ‚red‘ literally, for we shall shed such floods of blood that all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars will tremble and pale in comparison. The greatest bankers across the ocean will work in closest contact with us. If we win the revolution, we will build power […] on the ruins of the burial of the revolution, and we will become a power before which the whole world will kneel. We will show what true power is. By terror and bloodbaths we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of utter stupidity and idiocy and to an animal existence… At present our young men in their leather jackets, the sons of watchmakers from Odessa, Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa, know how to hate everything Russian! What a pleasure it is for them to physically destroy the Russian intelligentsia – officers, academics and writers!…“
Leon Trotsky in Aron Simanovich’s „Rasputin: The Memoirs of his Secretary“, link
For some, even Trotskyism was (or is) not progressive enough. They take their cue from the Khmer Rouge, a bestial gang of murderers who took the lives of 1.7 million people. Moreover, according to the neo-Malthusian guidelines of the Committee of 300, the Cambodian people should be allowed only the most primitive living conditions by these Stone Age communists [link].
Such K and Sponti groups infiltrated the newly founded Greens and the trade unions and editorial offices belonging to the parties. Conservative ecologists around Herbert Gruhl were marginalised early on and split off. Prominent German examples of entrists are Winfried Kretschmann, the current prime minister of Baden-Württemberg, Krista Sager, the former party leader Jürgen Trittin, the temporary vice-president of the German Bundestag Antje Vollmer, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, ex-Green leader Joschka Fischer, EU parliamentarian Reinhard Bütikofer and Kerstin Müller [link, link].
So there are parallels, at least in terms of ideological orientation, between the communist regime in Romania under Ceaușescu and the leadership of the Greens. Have the Greens, especially Economics Minister Habeck, gone too far, just like Ceaușescu?
Ceaușescu’s end: warning to Habeck?
Finally, the tormented people had had enough and turned against their oppressor, at least that is the official version. In fact, the overthrow came from parts of the security apparatus [link], as he refused to resign and initiate „perestroika“ during a visit to Moscow in November 1989. The Queen stripped him of the knighthood he had been awarded in 1978 [link]. Clearly he had gone over the top with his refusal to resign to his commanders. Ceaușescu was sentenced on 25 December 1989 after a short „trial“ that lasted exactly 1 minute and 44 seconds and was immediately put up against the wall together with his wife.
Then the Ceausescus appeared. „They whimpered like children,“ Cirlan recalls. “ ‚We can’t be killed like dogs!‘ he shouted, looking at us. ‚We will be killed like dogs!‘ That was a hard moment for all of us. Then she said, ‚If you are going to kill us, don’t kill him out of respect for our love for each other and let me watch. At least let me die together with my husband.‘ And the general ordered, ‚Take her to the wall with him.‘ “
At one point Cirlan said, „It was so hard to look at them that we turned away. They were put against the wall. We knew who they were, but I suddenly saw this human face – he looked so confused. Then he looked me straight in the eye and shouted: „Long live the Socialist Republic of Romania! History will avenge me!‘ And he started singing a fragment of the ‚Internationale‘. At that moment the order came and all three of us shot from the hip. We shot at him while he was singing. We shot from a distance of one metre, maybe even 50 cm. We had only emptied half the magazines before they were pressed dead against the wall. The impact of the bullets into her was so strong that she moved like this…“ and Cirlan, who had been sitting until now, stands up to demonstrate how Elena Ceausescu was slammed against the wall at an angle and upwards. Then he sits back down on the black faux-leather sofa.
Ed Vulliamy, Guardian article of 19 July 2009 [link].
Can the headline in Der Spiegel be interpreted as a warning to Habeck from the background powers? Is he being dropped as a scapegoat or even staging a popular uprising like in Romania if the Great Reset plans fail? Is there dissent at a higher level?