Palestinians do not descend from those who were responsible for the Jews being forced from their homeland. However, current Americans do descend from those responsible for what happened to the Native Americans.
My greatest irritation is the extreme hypocrisy in society’s fussiness over perfect language, spelling, and grammar which always fails to include precision in terminology that opposes state dogma.
Do scholars ever write articles discussing “North-Korean variants of democracy” or “democracy with North-Korean characteristics”? Of course not. It’s obvious to anybody that democracy is merely being abused and exploited by a regime that cares nothing about its people to maintain power.
Sinister regimes will always use something positive to mask the fact they have no intention of actually implementing such things.
Everyone can agree on that.
So why do people imply that Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot were genuinely interested in trying to implement real communism/socialism? Just like North Korea declaring itself democratic or the phoney elections held by authoritarian states, there is only the desire to pretend one is implementing socialism on the people’s behalf.
The abuse of the terms “communism”/”socialism” by the West (and the authoritarian regimes) are some of the worst forms of human mind-control. Educators who are using these terms to describe the USSR or Pol Pot’s Cambodia are genuinely brainwashing children, harming society, and engaging in Orwellian-style thought-control.
The first thing that pops up when I type “communism” into Google:
Communism is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.
Does that at all sound like the USSR, China, North Vietnam etc.?
But despite the extreme need for precision in language, no scholars, academics or educators bother bringing up the fact that these authoritarian regimes inherently could not be communist by definition. It’s like saying “authoritarian democracy” or “democracy with authoritarian elements.”
There are no excuses for abusing terminology in this fashion. How could Hitler’s Nazi Party and the USSR both be examples of socialism? Just looking at the basic definition of socialism, one can tell that neither are socialist. Every educated man and woman wants to pretend that abuse of language will lead to the destruction of society, yet none are willing to sacrifice their position within their academic circle by pointing out the simple, basic truth that these terms have been exploited by the West and the Eastern regimes to justify control.
Is everyone too lazy to put their heads together and come up with new terminology that is actually accurate? When it came to quantum mechanics, everybody was willing to get together to sort out how the entire physics community should interpret the new scientific research/data. But nobody can put their heads together to figure out that people will say whatever it takes to get themselves into power.
One could call it: “Stalinism,” “authoritarian exploitation,” “intentional impoverishment,” “Stalinist classism,” “Maoist elitism,” “Pol Pot’s exploitation of socialist ideology,” “lying,” etc.
At the end of the day, anybody who thinks the USSR was an example of communism or socialism is either:
a) not intelligent enough to be discussing the issue on an academic/political level, or
b) using their intelligence to purposefully lie to the public.
Either way, people like that should have no place in academia, education or the political arena.
(Note: This is especially targeted towards those who think direct democracy should be curtailed on their behalf.)
For me, Israel should have never been created. The Palestinians are not descendants of those responsible for the Jewish-Roman wars that occurred in that region roughly two thousand years ago. On top of that, around the 1900’s, Zionists wanted to create a home for themselves in Argentina with no regard for whether or not it was somebody else’s land. 
Furthermore, it’s pretty obvious that Aboriginals can prove that they are the direct descendants of the original inhabitants of the Americas. They have a far greater claim to taking back their original land.
I think it’s interesting how such obviousness completely slips under the radar. People who consider themselves “the responsible and enlightened men and women of society” are suddenly nowhere to be found when such obvious inconsistencies arise and easily allow the more aggressive and unapologetically illogical voices of society to take over. It’s obvious that right-wing loud-mouths make no sound arguments, yet those who pretend their place in society is to sort out the foolishness of the common person don’t intervene at all when people far less sensible than the common person use the least sensical arguments to justify Israel’s “right to exist” while pretending the Native Americans being almost completely wiped out when the Europeans arrived was just a coincidence.
I’ve seen people using the greater surface area of the Arab nations as an argument for why Israel is the victim. Again, suddenly all the “responsible men and women” just let such nonsense occur despite being more than intelligent enough to know these are not sound arguments whatsoever. Even if a person sides with Israel, they should still speak out against people siding with Israel for reasons they disagree with. Sam Harris who cares so much about logic/reason suddenly doesn’t mind the amount who support Israel for purely Christian reasons. Even if he sides with Israel, he should still voice criticism of people supporting for a reason he is supposed to disagree with.
The Economist suggested a meritocracy where the public votes on more issues, but “responsible men and women” review everything and have final say. What responsible men and women? It’s obvious that many within the political/media/academic/business élite knew full well what Israel was up to and have been intentionally lying and whitewashing the crimes. Are they going to own up to that now that the public knows what’s been happening? Are they going to bear proper punishment the way responsible men and women are supposed to? Or are they going to be as silent as possible, hoping the situation blows over, so they aren’t given the punishment they deserve?
For the Native American issue, even if current Americans aren’t responsible for the crimes of their ancestors, they still need to make amends. If my grandparents stole a painting from your grandparents, that painting still belongs to your lineage. “Enlightened/responsible men and women” should be smart enough to figure that out. But the issue never comes up. “Erudite” men/women will talk for ages and write countless scholarly articles about some obscure philosophical concept, yet, for something so basic and obvious, they suddenly choose to say nothing and let illogic they purport to hate have voice.
Any treasures taken during colonialism must go back to their rightful owners. That’s basic common sense – if you are holding goods your ancestors stole, they still don’t belong to you. But “mature and responsible men/women” who are so much more logical than the rest of us, again, just play dumb and refuse to deal with the issue despite being more than intelligent enough to know what is right and what is wrong.
It’s juvenile and irresponsible to be silent about such things and then make claims that you are one of the more sensible voices of society who need to bar the will of the people and curtail true democracy because everybody else is so illogical, irresponsible, and immature.
Today’s servant of power is:
I always thought the reverence people had for ancient Athens and Aristotle represented a lack of genuine insight.
Ancient Athens is no example of direct democracy. When women aren’t given the right to vote and slavery is a common staple of society, it’s still just elitism masquerading as liberalism.
Aristotle, himself, tried to find excuses for why slavery was justified for his own self-convenience – nothing more.
On top of that he engaged in the constant fear-mongering oppressors always use against the people they victimize. The British fear of the East Indians, the fear European settlers had for the Native Americans, the fear Westerners have for Middle Easterners despite using their industrialized militaries to slaughter them in large numbers or various tactics to destabilize the region.
This mentality is pathological (in a way that makes it even more evil.) Here’s a perfect illustration: Tampa police: Marine reservist attacked Greek priest he mistook for terrorist
The Spartans were likewise “terrified” of the Helots, whom they had enslaved. Aristotle compares the Helots to “an enemy constantly sitting in wait of the disaster of the Spartans”. 
Lying for the oppressors says everything about a person’s true character and, at the end of the day, character is all that truly matters in terms of alleviating human suffering and building a truly peaceful global community.
For me, Aristotle is like Orwell. I agree with many of Orwell’s observations and assertions and often make use of his ideas. Nineteen Eighty-Four illustrates very well the use of a constant threat of enemy attack to justify endless, mindless warfare. However, if Orwell were alive today, he might also be engaging in mindless fear-mongering and Islamophobia and would most likely have supported genocide in Gaza. People become very different when it comes to power and easily do everything they originally purported to oppose.
Can anybody say they are surprised the world is the way it is, now?
Enforcers and supporters of blatant genocide – just to name a few:
Other political figures:
News people and pundits:
Nobel Peace Prize recipients and other “humanitarians”:
“Liberal” Hollywood élite:
In my opinion, Branson is a huge phoney. He does all the fake-liberal humanitarian PR-activities of those who pretend to care about humanity, but who then give tacit support to atrocities such as genocide in Gaza.
Lately, many activists have been elucidating the fact that the highest-efficiency economy would be one where machines and technology replace all human labour. However, this results in the obvious problem that everybody is poor/unemployed despite exponential increases in output as well as the fact only those owning the means of production truly benefit, shattering the notion that extreme wealth inequality will result in more for everybody.
In response to such growing awareness, Branson posted an article stating that entrepreneurs work hundreds of hours more than the regular person, implying they deserve to have what they have. However, because he is such a nice guy, he’s willing to advocate for shorter work weeks and hours for his employees – as long as he is still in control of them, of course.
Furthermore, despite caring so much about the public, on continuing British membership in the EU, despite supporting the notion, Branson opposed having a referendum on the issue, lest the public actually get a taste of true democracy.