Stalin & Qaddaffi Weren't Demonized: They did it to themselves (with the help of those around them)

There's a fellow by the name of Morris Herman who vlogs (video blogs) on YouTube. I have mixed emotions about his work, as I'm sure he does about mine. His most recent video is embedded below. I'm going to address only the first part concerning Joseph Stalin, as I think that setting the record straight on that will also set the proper stage for appraising Qaddaffi's regime in Libya, at least as concerns this video of Morris's.

Qaddaffi was not a Marxist, per se, because he was also, ostensibly at least, a Muslim. A Muslim can agree with some tenets of Marxism but certainly will reject materialism.

Anyway, concerning Stalin, let me say briefly that it is not generally disputed that Stalin was ruthless and brutal and despite the opening of the Soviet archives. The Gulag Archipelago (millions in force-labor camps, most apparently died) is not a falsehood and neither is the Great Purge (1,000 executions per day, minimum; "numerous mass graves filled with executed victims of the terror") or the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 (millions starved to death due to inhuman, barbaric treatment — see: Ukrainian Holodomor — and the Law of Spikelets, which was part of the cause for the famine. The farmers were not allowed to eat their fill of their harvest. In other words, Stalin and Lenin before him, muzzled the oxen to death, an absolutely stupid and monstrous thing to do.

Let me point out at this point that the torturing that went on in Abu Salim Prison under Qaddaffi is well-documented. It happened. Also, Qaddaffi stashed tens of billions (some say it might have been as high as $200 billion) out of the reach of the Libyan people, 30+% of whom were reportedly still living in poverty (which many homes and possessions clearly suggests) despite all the claims of how wonderful Qaddaffi was. Meanwhile, Qaddaffi lived in nothing less than opulence and splendor while lavishing his children to the point that some were apparently horribly spoiled, even perverted brats.

The Trotskyists' critique of Stalin are apt. Stalin was anti-democratic and elitist. His top bureaucrats lived as multimillionaires and he himself live in luxury while tens of millions lived rather meager lives at best. Stalin was also a totalitarian. Anyone who disagreed with him was killed or sent to a labor camp or into exile — hardly a man I would choose as leader.

Now, with all of that in mind, watch the following video (bear in mind that I don't entirely disagree with some of Morris's sentiments — we agree on plenty of things at least partially):

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Anonymous

      Morris Herman is grossly deluded and thinks all the world's problems emanate from Zionism. Why bother giving the pathetic fool any oxygen at all. btw, good article to set the record straight on Herman's equally idiotic interviewee, who obviously has a self serving view of history.

      • Morris can speak for himself, but I should think based upon my prior interactions with him that he doesn't think all of the world's problems emanate from Zionism -- many but not all of the problems.

        He has this idea though that religious Jews of a very particular type (supremacists if you will) ultimately hold sway over the elite banking class of Jews, which constitutes quite a group of never-audited money-wealthy and secular- and religious-political controllers (the most powerful group in the world in Morris's view).

        My belief is that human beings will use what they are able to "get ahead" while I don't agree with their definition of what constitutes actually getting ahead.

        I believe that orthodox Jews in Israel and elsewhere were greatly discriminated against by the Herzl Zionists in power in and out of Jewish Palestine. Over time, the religious have gained in power by reason of breeding and fanaticism.

        I'm a bleeding-heart liberal even while my views are extremely socially conservative in many respects. What has made me difficult for others to grasp is that, like Jesus (of course, since I'm a Christian), I don't subscribe to coercing others. It doesn't even become an issue with children until they are twisted by evil temptations and bad examples, etc.

        Thank you for the compliment regarding my take on Stalinism.

      • Well, I'm disappointed in Morris. Without justification, he apparently deleted some of my YouTube comments on his video.

        I've heard him speak about his reasoning when he deletes comments, and those reasons he gave sounded reasonable. I also see other comments that were left up that cross his stated lines.

        My comments though were on topic and added to the intellectual debate. They didn't though agree with Morris's line.

        Now, Morris has commented on this cite before and not fully agreed with me, but because his comments were in line with the issue and not trolling, as it were, I left them up and didn't even consider deleting them.

        So now, I have a different view of Morris. If someone disagrees with him about Qaddaffi and that person can string sentences together in a way that might, probably do, cause others to pause and to reconsider their "leftist" support for Qaddaffi, then Morris appears to feel threatened enough by that to delete the person's comments even though that person has been nothing but fair and open with Morris and others about those issues where he agrees and also disagrees with Morris.

        It could be that Morris will rethink what he did and come to the conclusion in hindsight that he should not have deleted my comments. I leave that to him. I'm always ready to except such events.

        I did add another comment where one of mine was deleted. If that one too disappears, then I'm done.I don't like intellectual cowardice, which means, among other things, that one is unwilling to debate on the merits. I will starve that cowardice of oxygen so to speak. I don't allow it here on this blog and don't intend to start.

        Peace!

    • Let me add that I wonder what was going on off camera when the Stalinist laughed about the metaphysics of Christianity.

      The materialist laughed about the Second Coming and the power of God to raise up the dead. He's an atheist. He doesn't know where he came from, but he's sure there is no God without whom he would never have taken a breath.

      I'm not a Zionist, but I don't rebuke them for saying there is God and Jesus and the resurrection and Heaven, etc. I rebuke them for saying that God sides with those who use lies, terrorism, and war to dispossess those who had not harmed them or seek to while those racists who did, sit in Germany, fat and rich.

    • Anonymous

      If a man argues with a fool, then two fools are arguing.  Morris Herman is without a doubt a fool. I detect a mean spiritedness and resentfulness  behind his persona.  I saw him on one of his ridiculous videos nodding sagely and saying he truly believed that Gaddafi was a good man. Need I say any more.

      • Well, there is arguing with fools, and then there is making public statements not to be arguing with fools but to be giving alternative views to those who are open to thinking about such things and who might otherwise be led down the garden path. I trust you understand my point.

        I believe Morris is mistaken on a number of things, but I have heard him admit his unsureness. I haven't seen what I consider a mean streak in the common usage. If anything, he's much "easier" on people than am I. Of course, that doesn't prove he has no mean intentions. He's no pacifist. He truly wanted Qaddaffi's forces to trounce the uprising. I, on the other hand, did not want any violence but also did not want Qaddaffi to win via violence.Morris thinks everything on the world stage is orchestrated and choreographed by a Jewish religious cabal much more than it is. I know it's messier than Morris thinks or wants to think.

        For instance, he suggested that Qaddaffi didn't die but that it was all faked on orders (directly or indirectly) from on high (the religious "Jews"). Now that's impossible if we are to believe anything at all. Qaddaffi is not going to show up alive somewhere. Had it been a fake, we would have heard Qaddaffi (even before Morris made Morris's claim/speculated) via the channels Qaddaffi was using before he was executed -- and yes, I believe he was shot in the head by the rebels on purpose.I have also seen Morris glom onto all things anti-NATO as if those statements are always sacrosanct, as if there aren't liars on the anti-NATO side as well. Morris went on about how Turkey has invaded Syria just because pro-Assad propagandists had put that bit out there on the Internet. Morris also echoed every casualty stat of the Qaddaffi regime. Qaddaffi's forces were winning all over the place per those reports, but they were false or grossly exaggerated, as history shows who "won" and how quickly and where, etc.

        I don't wish Morris any evil. I hope he comes to see many of these things. I believe he could if he would slow down a bit and consider more rather than work as hard as he does in promoting his own admittedly muddled views.

        He has this notion that Islam can possibly be a saving way. It's very secularly "pragmatic" (he seems to think) and not really spiritually based in my view, at least that I can tell from Morris's work. He sees iniquity all about, and rightly so, and then hears the Muslims speak about how to deal with it all (sharia, the harsh brand too).

        I don't buy it at all, and Morris has known that about me all along. I've been Christian the whole time and even offered that to Morris, but he rejected it in favor of Islam (though he's not publicly announced he is a Muslim -- though he has seemed right on the edge). Those he was looking to though let him down concerning the "culture wars." Why that hasn't meant more to him than it has is for Morris to contemplate.

    • Morris has not deleted my replacement comment (so far):

      http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=5_QLe5hrskg

      @YaHuWaHservant My comment was deleted. I repost a clearer version here: We know that various governments froze tens of billions and Qaddaffi complained. The oil money was "Qaddaffi's" in the sense that he could order it used in anyway he personally chose. His children personally received tens of millions. Now that happened while other Libyans lived in poverty. That was inexcusable and evil no matter how you look at it.
      TomUsherRLCC 1 day ago