Stocks and News
Home | Week in Review Process | Terms of Use | About UsContact Us
   Articles Go Fund Me All-Species List Hot Spots Go Fund Me
Week in Review   |  Bar Chat    |  Hot Spots    |   Dr. Bortrum    |   Wall St. History
Stock and News: Hot Spots
  Search Our Archives: 
 

 

Hot Spots

http://www.gofundme.com/s3h2w8

AddThis Feed Button
   

06/10/2004

Reagan vs. Communism

**You can find my extensive history of the Tiananmen Square
massacre by accessing the archives link below.**

---

President Ronald Reagan

Speech to the British Parliament
June 8, 1982

In this historic speech, Ronald Reagan laid out a Cold War
foreign policy that at its core would demonize the Soviet Union,
combining it with a vision of the West as the leader of a moral
crusade against evil. It was very controversial at the time.
History proved him right.

[Following are excerpts.]

---

We’re approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a
terrible political invention – totalitarianism. Optimism comes
less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but
because democracy’s enemies have refined their instruments of
repression. Yet optimism is in order because day by day
democracy is proving itself to be a not at all fragile flower. From
Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes
planted by totalitarianism have had more than thirty years to
establish their legitimacy. But none – not one regime – has yet
been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do
not take root.

The strength of the Solidarity movement in Poland demonstrates
the truth told in an underground joke in the Soviet Union. It is
that the Soviet Union would remain a one-party nation even if an
opposition party were permitted because everyone would join the
opposition party

Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent
restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that
it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their
nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or
imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of
the Communist world, the map of Europe – indeed, the world –
would look very different today. And certainly they will note it
was not the democracies that invaded Afghanistan or suppressed
Polish Solidarity or used chemical and toxin warfare in
Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.

If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of
unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of
our terrible dilemma – predictions of doomsday, antinuclear
demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own
protection, be an unwilling participant. At the same time we see
totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict
around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human
spirit. What, then, is our course? Must civilization perish in a
hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening
accommodation with totalitarian evil?

Sir Winston Churchill refused to accept the inevitability of war
or even that it was imminent. He said, “I do not believe that
Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war
and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But
what we have to consider here today while time remains is the
permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions
of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all
countries.”

Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as
well as peace. It may not be easy to see; but I believe we live
now at a turning point.

In an ironic sense Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today
a great revolutionary crisis, a crisis where the demands of the
economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political
order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non Marxist
West but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union. It
is the Soviet Union that runs against the ride of history by
denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It
also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate of growth in the
national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and
is less than half of what it was then.

The dimensions of this failure are astounding: a country which
employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to
feed its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the tiny
private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might
be on the brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3
percent of the arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of
Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and
vegetables. Over-centralized, with little or no incentives, year
after year the Soviet system pours its best resources into the
making of instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of
economic growth combined with the growth of military
production is putting a heavy strain on the Soviet people. What
we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to
its economic base, a society where productive forces are
hampered by political ones.

The decay of the Soviet experiment should come as no surprise
to us. Wherever the comparisons have been made between free
and closed societies – West Germany and East Germany, Austria
and Czechoslovakia, Malaysia and Vietnam – it is the democratic
countries that are prosperous and responsive to the needs of their
people. And one of the simple but overwhelming facts of our
time is this: of all the millions of refugees we’ve seen in the
modern world, their flight is always away from, not toward the
Communist world. Today on the NATO line, our military forces
face east to prevent a possible invasion. On the other side of the
line, the Soviet forces also face east to prevent their people from
leaving.

The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an
uprising of the intellect and will. Whether it is the growth of the
new schools of economics in America or England or the
appearance of the so-called new philosophers in France, there is
one unifying thread running through the intellectual work of
these groups – rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the
refusal to subordinate the rights of the individual to the
superstate, the realization that collectivism stifles all the best
human impulses .

In the Communist world as well, man’s instinctive desire for
freedom and self-determination surfaces again and again. To be
sure, there are grim reminders of how brutally the police state
attempts to snuff out this quest for self-rule: in 1953 in East
Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, 1981 in
Poland. But the struggle continues in Poland, and we know there
are even those who strive and suffer for freedom within the
confines of the Soviet Union itself. How we conduct ourselves
here in the Western democracies will determine whether this
trend continues.

No, democracy is not a fragile flower; still, it needs cultivating.
If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of
freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the
campaign for democracy .

As for the Soviet Union, Chairman Brezhnev repeatedly has
stressed that the competition of ideas and systems must continue
and that this is entirely consistent with relaxation of tensions and
peace.

Well, we ask only that these systems begin by living up to their
own constitutions, abiding by their own laws, and complying
with the international obligations they have undertaken. We ask
only for a process, a direction, a basic code of decency, not for
an instant transformation.

We cannot ignore the fact that even without our encouragement
there has been and will continue to be repeated explosion against
repression and dictatorships. The Soviet Union itself is not
immune to this reality. Any system is inherently unstable that
has no peaceful means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases,
the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to
resist it, if necessary, by force.

While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we
must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take
concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in
our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky
few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings.
So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections.

The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the
infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions,
political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose
their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their
own differences through peaceful means.

This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for
genuine self-determination and protection for diversity.
Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different
cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural
condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer
dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to
have the right to vote, decide to purchase government
propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer
government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be
owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government
repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of a
free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic
tolerance and diversity .

Since 1917 the Soviet Union has given covert political training
and assistance to Marxist-Leninists in many countries. Of
course, it also has promoted the use of violence and subversion
by these same forces. Over the past several decades, West
European and other social democrats, Christian democrats, and
leaders have offered open assistance to fraternal, political, and
social institutions to bring about peaceful and democratic
progress. Appropriately, for a vigorous new democracy, the
Federal Republic of Germany’s political foundations have
become a major force in this effort.

We in America now intend to take additional steps, as many of
our allies have already done, toward realizing this same goal.
The chairmen and other leaders of the national Republican and
Democratic party organizations are initiating a study with the
bipartisan American Political Foundation to determine how the
United States can best contribute as a nation to the global
campaign for democracy now gathering force. They will have
the cooperation of congressional leaders of both parties, along
with representatives of business, labor, and other major
institutions in our society. I look forward to receiving their
recommendations and to working with these institutions and the
Congress in the common task of strengthening democracy
throughout the world.

It is time that we committed ourselves as a nation – in both the
public and private sectors – to assisting democratic
development .

What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term
– the march of freedom and democracy which will leave
Marxism – Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left
other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-
expression of the people. And that’s why we must continue our
efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our
zero-option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range
forces and our proposal for a one-third reduction in strategic
ballistic missile warheads.

Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear
we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for
the ultimate determinant in the struggle that’s now going on in
the world will not be bomb sand rockets but a test of wills and
ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs
we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.

The British people know that, given strong leadership, time, and
a little bit of hope, the forces of good ultimately rally and
triumph over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-
government, the Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring
greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the great
civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government,
and the rule of law under God.

I’ve often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West
about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease
the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect world. This
reluctance to use those vast resources at our command reminds
me of the elderly lady whose home was bombed in the blitz. As
the rescuers moved about, they found a bottle of brandy she’d
stored behind the staircase, which was all that was left standing.
And since she was barely conscious, one of the workers pulled
the cork to give her a taste of it. She came around immediately
and said, “Here now – there now, put it back. That’s for
emergencies.”

Well, the emergency is upon us. Let us be shy no longer. Let us
go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a
new age is not only possible but probable.

During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island
was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed
about Britain’s adversaries, “What kind of people do they think
we are?” Well, Britain’s adversaries found out what
extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies
paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate
us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask
ourselves, “What kind of people do we think we are?” And let
us answer, “Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not
only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.”

Sir Winston led his people to great victory in war and then lost
an election just as the fruits of victory were about to be enjoyed.
But he left office honorably and, as it turned out, temporarily,
knowing that the liberty of his people was more important than
the fate of any single leader. History recalls his greatness in
ways no dictator will ever know. And he left us a message of
hope for the future, as timely now as when he first uttered it, as
opposition leader in the Commons nearly twenty-seven years
ago, when I said, “When we look back on all the perils through
which we have passed and at the mighty foes that we have laid
low and all the dark and deadly designs that we have frustrated,
why should we fear for our future? We have,” he said, “come
safely through the worst.”

Well, the task I’ve set forth will long outlive our own generation.
But together, we too have come through the worst. Let us now
begin a major effort to secure the best – a crusade for freedom
that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation.
For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in
which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.

---

Hott Spotts will return June 17.


AddThis Feed Button

 

-06/10/2004-      
Web Epoch NJ Web Design  |  (c) Copyright 2016 StocksandNews.com, LLC.

Hot Spots

06/10/2004

Reagan vs. Communism

**You can find my extensive history of the Tiananmen Square
massacre by accessing the archives link below.**

---

President Ronald Reagan

Speech to the British Parliament
June 8, 1982

In this historic speech, Ronald Reagan laid out a Cold War
foreign policy that at its core would demonize the Soviet Union,
combining it with a vision of the West as the leader of a moral
crusade against evil. It was very controversial at the time.
History proved him right.

[Following are excerpts.]

---

We’re approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a
terrible political invention – totalitarianism. Optimism comes
less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but
because democracy’s enemies have refined their instruments of
repression. Yet optimism is in order because day by day
democracy is proving itself to be a not at all fragile flower. From
Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes
planted by totalitarianism have had more than thirty years to
establish their legitimacy. But none – not one regime – has yet
been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do
not take root.

The strength of the Solidarity movement in Poland demonstrates
the truth told in an underground joke in the Soviet Union. It is
that the Soviet Union would remain a one-party nation even if an
opposition party were permitted because everyone would join the
opposition party

Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent
restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that
it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their
nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or
imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of
the Communist world, the map of Europe – indeed, the world –
would look very different today. And certainly they will note it
was not the democracies that invaded Afghanistan or suppressed
Polish Solidarity or used chemical and toxin warfare in
Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.

If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of
unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of
our terrible dilemma – predictions of doomsday, antinuclear
demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own
protection, be an unwilling participant. At the same time we see
totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict
around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human
spirit. What, then, is our course? Must civilization perish in a
hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening
accommodation with totalitarian evil?

Sir Winston Churchill refused to accept the inevitability of war
or even that it was imminent. He said, “I do not believe that
Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war
and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But
what we have to consider here today while time remains is the
permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions
of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all
countries.”

Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as
well as peace. It may not be easy to see; but I believe we live
now at a turning point.

In an ironic sense Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today
a great revolutionary crisis, a crisis where the demands of the
economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political
order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non Marxist
West but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union. It
is the Soviet Union that runs against the ride of history by
denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It
also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate of growth in the
national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and
is less than half of what it was then.

The dimensions of this failure are astounding: a country which
employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to
feed its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the tiny
private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might
be on the brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3
percent of the arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of
Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and
vegetables. Over-centralized, with little or no incentives, year
after year the Soviet system pours its best resources into the
making of instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of
economic growth combined with the growth of military
production is putting a heavy strain on the Soviet people. What
we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to
its economic base, a society where productive forces are
hampered by political ones.

The decay of the Soviet experiment should come as no surprise
to us. Wherever the comparisons have been made between free
and closed societies – West Germany and East Germany, Austria
and Czechoslovakia, Malaysia and Vietnam – it is the democratic
countries that are prosperous and responsive to the needs of their
people. And one of the simple but overwhelming facts of our
time is this: of all the millions of refugees we’ve seen in the
modern world, their flight is always away from, not toward the
Communist world. Today on the NATO line, our military forces
face east to prevent a possible invasion. On the other side of the
line, the Soviet forces also face east to prevent their people from
leaving.

The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an
uprising of the intellect and will. Whether it is the growth of the
new schools of economics in America or England or the
appearance of the so-called new philosophers in France, there is
one unifying thread running through the intellectual work of
these groups – rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the
refusal to subordinate the rights of the individual to the
superstate, the realization that collectivism stifles all the best
human impulses .

In the Communist world as well, man’s instinctive desire for
freedom and self-determination surfaces again and again. To be
sure, there are grim reminders of how brutally the police state
attempts to snuff out this quest for self-rule: in 1953 in East
Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, 1981 in
Poland. But the struggle continues in Poland, and we know there
are even those who strive and suffer for freedom within the
confines of the Soviet Union itself. How we conduct ourselves
here in the Western democracies will determine whether this
trend continues.

No, democracy is not a fragile flower; still, it needs cultivating.
If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of
freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the
campaign for democracy .

As for the Soviet Union, Chairman Brezhnev repeatedly has
stressed that the competition of ideas and systems must continue
and that this is entirely consistent with relaxation of tensions and
peace.

Well, we ask only that these systems begin by living up to their
own constitutions, abiding by their own laws, and complying
with the international obligations they have undertaken. We ask
only for a process, a direction, a basic code of decency, not for
an instant transformation.

We cannot ignore the fact that even without our encouragement
there has been and will continue to be repeated explosion against
repression and dictatorships. The Soviet Union itself is not
immune to this reality. Any system is inherently unstable that
has no peaceful means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases,
the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to
resist it, if necessary, by force.

While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we
must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take
concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in
our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky
few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings.
So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections.

The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the
infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions,
political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose
their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their
own differences through peaceful means.

This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for
genuine self-determination and protection for diversity.
Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different
cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural
condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer
dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to
have the right to vote, decide to purchase government
propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer
government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be
owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government
repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of a
free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic
tolerance and diversity .

Since 1917 the Soviet Union has given covert political training
and assistance to Marxist-Leninists in many countries. Of
course, it also has promoted the use of violence and subversion
by these same forces. Over the past several decades, West
European and other social democrats, Christian democrats, and
leaders have offered open assistance to fraternal, political, and
social institutions to bring about peaceful and democratic
progress. Appropriately, for a vigorous new democracy, the
Federal Republic of Germany’s political foundations have
become a major force in this effort.

We in America now intend to take additional steps, as many of
our allies have already done, toward realizing this same goal.
The chairmen and other leaders of the national Republican and
Democratic party organizations are initiating a study with the
bipartisan American Political Foundation to determine how the
United States can best contribute as a nation to the global
campaign for democracy now gathering force. They will have
the cooperation of congressional leaders of both parties, along
with representatives of business, labor, and other major
institutions in our society. I look forward to receiving their
recommendations and to working with these institutions and the
Congress in the common task of strengthening democracy
throughout the world.

It is time that we committed ourselves as a nation – in both the
public and private sectors – to assisting democratic
development .

What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term
– the march of freedom and democracy which will leave
Marxism – Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left
other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-
expression of the people. And that’s why we must continue our
efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our
zero-option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range
forces and our proposal for a one-third reduction in strategic
ballistic missile warheads.

Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear
we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for
the ultimate determinant in the struggle that’s now going on in
the world will not be bomb sand rockets but a test of wills and
ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs
we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.

The British people know that, given strong leadership, time, and
a little bit of hope, the forces of good ultimately rally and
triumph over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-
government, the Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring
greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the great
civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government,
and the rule of law under God.

I’ve often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West
about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease
the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect world. This
reluctance to use those vast resources at our command reminds
me of the elderly lady whose home was bombed in the blitz. As
the rescuers moved about, they found a bottle of brandy she’d
stored behind the staircase, which was all that was left standing.
And since she was barely conscious, one of the workers pulled
the cork to give her a taste of it. She came around immediately
and said, “Here now – there now, put it back. That’s for
emergencies.”

Well, the emergency is upon us. Let us be shy no longer. Let us
go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a
new age is not only possible but probable.

During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island
was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed
about Britain’s adversaries, “What kind of people do they think
we are?” Well, Britain’s adversaries found out what
extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies
paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate
us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask
ourselves, “What kind of people do we think we are?” And let
us answer, “Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not
only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.”

Sir Winston led his people to great victory in war and then lost
an election just as the fruits of victory were about to be enjoyed.
But he left office honorably and, as it turned out, temporarily,
knowing that the liberty of his people was more important than
the fate of any single leader. History recalls his greatness in
ways no dictator will ever know. And he left us a message of
hope for the future, as timely now as when he first uttered it, as
opposition leader in the Commons nearly twenty-seven years
ago, when I said, “When we look back on all the perils through
which we have passed and at the mighty foes that we have laid
low and all the dark and deadly designs that we have frustrated,
why should we fear for our future? We have,” he said, “come
safely through the worst.”

Well, the task I’ve set forth will long outlive our own generation.
But together, we too have come through the worst. Let us now
begin a major effort to secure the best – a crusade for freedom
that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation.
For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in
which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.

---

Hott Spotts will return June 17.