It was Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian writer, who made the "gulag archipelago" part of our language. He won the Nobel Prize for the book of that name, lived here in exile and was mentioned in the media almost every day—until he made the fateful speech at Harvard, one of many universities founded to spread word of Jesus Christ.
On June 8th, 1978, Solzhenitsyn told a Harvard audience that "convergence" of the Soviet and American systems was doomed. "Convergence" has of course been one of the main purposes of the conspiracy for world government since the beginning. While he spoke, it was well under way.
Solzhenitsyn also made these telling comments: "As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that ‘communism is naturalized humanism.’" Humanism is of course the official government religion of this country. Maybe he didn’t know that.
He concluded as follows: "There is a disaster, however, which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness. . . . To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We . . . have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life."
With these remarks, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was confronting and exposing the insane Communist monsters who have usurped control of this country. Before that speech, the Communist media had made him an international celebrity, perhaps because the conspiracy for world government found his revelations about the horrors of the gulag temporarily useful. After that speech, he disappeared from public consciousness like a comet. Today, few Americans can remember his name.
What did Solzhenitsyn say about the gulag? "At what exact point, then, should one resist? When one’s belt is taken away. When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one’s home? . . . ." The same questions that are bothering you now. Solzhenitsyn bitterly laments the Russian failure to resist:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . ."
Apparently, they had no guns. Solzhenitsyn does not mention them. But he believes that axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else they had, could have done the job. He continues: ". . . After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur—what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"
One is reminded of "Death Wish," starring the late Charles Bronson. The architect hero was not a terrorist, i.e., he did not kill indiscriminately. He did not kill the innocent. He was mild, even harmless, until the guilty attacked. Then, he brought out the hog leg and went to work. Whenever he did so, the theater audience cheered. Acting alone, he turned New York on its ear. Other inmates, inspired, began to do the same. Criminals were indignant. Didn’t these New Yorkers know that packing heat was illegal? Crime fell. Imagine the effect of an epidemic of Bronsons.
That is what Russians should have done, says Solzhenitsyn. Of course, they didn’t do it. They "burned in the camps later" lamenting that fact: "If . . . if . . . We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more—we had no awareness of the real situation. . . . We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
They lost everything because they were too cowardly to act, because they didn’t love freedom enough. Of course, they were Russians, not Americans. Instead of SWAT and IRS CID, they had Organs. For centuries, they had lived under tyranny, benevolent or otherwise. They were emerging from that tyranny when the Communists perpetrated their coup by seizing a few buildings in Petrograd. They didn’t know what Communism was. They could not look back at what the Communists had done.
They did not have the benefit of more than two centuries of liberty. They did not have the untrammeled American spirit. They did not have thousands of retired Marine Corps snipers who still can stick it in your eye, and other thousands of retired Screaming Eagles who still can bring death from the sky. They did not have the guns. They did not have the .50 caliber rifle. They were not Americans. They had not stood with Stonewall Jackson.
What kind of resistance is Solzhenitsyn talking about? He is clearly not talking about a military unit, not even about a militia or any group at all. He is talking about what we might call leaderless, unorganized resistance, what later in the century, in Vietnam, Americans called "targets of opportunity," the people acting individually, their acts adding up to a devastating whole, a "life wish." There would have been nothing to infiltrate and no leader to kill.
By then, the Russian people had the moral right to do whatever they could get away with, like the German people under Hitler, like anyone living under a totalitarian dictatorship. The dictators had cancelled the law, which is a contractual agreement, so the people who had been defrauded no longer were required to perform. If you sign a contract to buy a house, and the owner refuses to vacate, you don’t need to make payments.
Of course, nothing I have said so far has any application here. Not at all. In fact, do not—do not—do not even contemplate doing what Solzhenitsyn says he and his fellow Russians should have done. After all, have not our Communist media utterly discredited him? I recall it simply because I am a history buff and it is interesting history. This is nothing more than a book review.
Certainly, I am not suggesting anything. It would be presumptuous to tell you what to do. Your own principles and circumstances will guide you. As Frank "The Chairman" Sinatra, warbled, "I did it my way!" And to paraphrase the liberaloid mantra, "If it feels right, do it."
A word should be said about Romans 13. For many years, pulpit pansies in the pay of the powers that would like to be have preached that Romans 13 teaches unconditional obedience to government. Whatever government does, according to this teaching, we have to endure it, because God has installed government for good.
Yes, He has, but since the men who run government are men, the chance is great that they will go bad. That is why God did the job Himself, through His judges, until His children demanded a king. Through Samuel, He warned them what a king would do. He would eat out their substance, etc. When stiff-necked Israelites would not yield, He gave them Saul. Guess what? God was—is—right. Scripture is full of cases of government run amok. When that happens, God sends someone to overthrow it.
King Jabin, the government, was oppressing the people. Jael lulled Sisera, his commanding general, to sleep and then nailed that old boy to the ground with a spike through his temples. Scripture says Jael is "blessed above women." The children of Israel sang about her in celebration of her exploit.
Eglon, king of Moab, oppressed the people. Ehud parked a knife in his belly. His majesty was so fat his belly closed around the knife, so that for a while the coroner couldn’t find the cause of death until crime scene investigators showed him the weapon. Scripture says Ehud was a deliverer whom the Lord had raised up.
Wasn’t Paul a notorious jailbird? Wasn’t Peter? Wasn’t Jesus a criminal? He must have been, according to today’s pansy preachers, because the government—the Sanhedrin and the Romans—said He was. Didn’t He destroy property and use violence when He kicked the moneychangers out? Didn’t He break the law Himself?
If you preach that the government can do no wrong and must be obeyed blindly whatever it does, that is where you must wind up. Romans 13 means that you must obey and defer to government as long as it does what God installed it to do. When government stops doing what God installed it to do—stops clearly and incontrovertibly—your obedience is no longer required. Weren’t our Founding Fathers criminals?
Is God a Nazi? That is the question. If you subscribe to the preaching of today’s pansy preachers, you believe He is. You believe you must obey Hitler because he is the government. You believe you must defer to whatever crimes the government commits because of what some pansy preacher says about Romans 13.
So you see, pal, the fact that you may put your collar on backward or have three first names, etc., cuts you no slack here. And by the way, those pansy preachers revere Martin Luther King, Jr. Wasn’t King in the Birmingham jail when he wrote his famous letter from Birmingham jail (if he wrote it)?
Wasn’t he there because he defied the government? Which governments does Romans 13 say we must obey? Regular readers will also remember that today’s Christianity has been infiltrated from top to bottom by Communists, starting even before World War II. Could that be the reason today’s pansy preachers pervert Romans 13? Are they deliberately trying to neutralize the faithful?
The gulag is
coming, tovarish. What will you do?
Published originally at EtherZone.com