In 1945, a particular global war ended and yet another started.

The Cold War lasted approximately forty five years. There was no immediate military campaigns between the 2 major antagonists, the Soviet Union and the United States. Still billions of dollars were wasted dollars of millions of mostly innocent lives have been lost in the struggle.

The United States had become the leader of the free market capitalist world. Its allies and America struggled to contain the communist, totalitarian Soviet Union from growing into Europe, Asia, and Africa. Theaters as remote as Vietnam and Korea, Grenada and Cuba, Angola and Afghanistan, became battlegrounds between the 2 ideologies. One postwar style quickly became apparent. The United States wouldn’t retreat into its former isolationist stance provided that there was considered a cold War to wage.

Winston Churchill’s 1946 speech to Westminster Faculty in Missouri contained the initial reference to the communist regimes of Eastern Europe as an “iron curtain.”

The long term reasons behind the Cold War were obvious. Western democracies had always been aggressive to the concept of a communist state. The United States had refused recognition of the USSR for sixteen years after the Bolshevik takeover. Domestic worries of communism erupted in a Red Scare in America during the early Twenties. American business executives had feared the effects of a politically driven workers’ business. World War II provided short term causes also.

There was hostility on the Soviet side also. 20 million Russian people perished during World War II. Stalin was enraged at the British and Americans who had waited so very long to open up a second front in France. This will have relieved strain on the Soviet Union through the attacking Germans. Additionally, the USA terminated Lend Lease help to the Soviet Union before the war was complete. Lastly, the Soviet Union thought communism was the best political system for all countries in the world.

Stalin made guarantees during the battle about the independence of eastern Europe on which he blatantly renegaded. At the YALTA Conference, the USSR pledged to get into the war against Japan but no later than 3 weeks after the realization of the European battle. In retrospect, the United States had given the Soviets territorial concessions from special rights and Japan in Chinese Manchuria.

Although Stalin was there to collect on Western promises, when the Soviet Union entered the war between the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the United States not needed the aid of theirs. All of these factors contributed to an environment of mistrust which heightened tensions at the outbreak of the Cold War.

For virtually all of the 2nd half of the twentieth century, the USSR and also some other countries have been interested in a Cold War reflected by diplomatic and economic struggles. The communist bloc, as it came out in 1950, included nations on the west as well as southeast of the Soviet Union.

At Potsdam, the Allies agreed on the postwar end result for Nazi Germany. After territorial changes, Germany was divided into 4 Occupation zones with the United States, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union administering it. Germany was being democratized and de-Nazified. As soon as the Nazi leaders have been arrested and war crimes trials started, a day will be agreed upon for the election associated with a new German government as well as the withdrawal of Allied soldiers.

This procedure was performed in the zones kept by the Western Allies. In the eastern Soviet occupation zone, a puppet communist regime was elected. Generally there was no promise of repatriation with the west. Eventually such governments, aided by the Soviet Red Army arrived to drive all across eastern Europe. Stalin was determined to develop a buffer zone to prevent any upcoming intrusion of the Russian heartland.

Winston Churchill remarked in 1946 that an “iron curtain had descended across the continent.”

Christos Marsellos has studied philosophy in Greece and France, has written various articles and essays that will be published or re-published mainly by the Perispomeni editions, and has translated into Greek a series of philosophical books.

FM: In your postface of the book "Financial Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" by John Maynard Keynes, you have written that in 1925, Keynes did not predict the hecatombs prepared by the religion of ethics. Which are these hecatombs?

Christos Marsellos: As religion of ethics, Keynes describes communism, and I am referring, of course, to the millions of victims of the communist experiment in the twentieth century. Without relieving the "Western" camp from its own responsibilities, it is a matter of honesty to recognize this reality, and it is a question of the responsibility of thought to look for the ultimate causes, not the obvious ones.

I also write that the bourgeois camp used the Communist hecatombs as an alibi for its own fatuities, but the opposite happened as well: the tragedies of communism have been explained by the resistance of the bourgeois camp, an unfavorable environment without which everything would have been just fine, wouldn't it. These ultimately are excuses from both sides, which prevent us from thinking more in-depth, while in the background, the common assumptions of both keep emerging.

These common assumptions are what we must reflect upon: the unconscious or unadmitted prevalence of homo economicus, which is not ideological – that is to say it has never been turned into a banner in its own name; on the contrary, one camp refuses that it serves homo economicus while at the same time defining man as a labor force; and the other camp which, until recently, supported homo economicus in the name of freedom, now finds that freedom is a concept that does not correspond to anything, that there is only successful or non-successful social engineering – and claims that its own social engineering is basically more successful, being more flexible.

FM: You write that homo economicus has spread everywhere. That there is only advertising or obscurity of the simply private. Could you please explain it to us?

CM : Homo economicus is understood here in its narrowest and most obvious sense, not the one I hinted at above. I realize that this is a proposition with which every honest blogger would be indignant, since his activity presupposes the belief that things cannot be restricted.

And because I do not claim to be a prophet, I would even go so far as to share in this belief and attenuate the judgment. I am just describing what I perceive as a trend. An old, Buddhist, I think, precept says that if you lock yourself in the most remote room of your home and think intensely, the entire world will hear you. But this meant it would hear you -… in the end. In other words, it presupposed history.

The trend of our era is the opposite. It is non-historical, and perhaps this is due to the nature of mass media. You can be heard from your room if you emit – sound or image – whether you are thinking intensely or not. It is worth remembering at this point what the name "mass media" indicates according to McLuhan: not the size of their audiences, but the fact that everybody becomes involved in them at the same time. It may take centuries to realize the consequences of this prevalence of synchronicity.

However, nowadays, the most private content becomes public while what should be "common" in the more traditional sense, as based on more universal criteria, is silenced unless it can become fashionable and be sold as a gadget to the self-respecting hipster. But of course that is how its nature changes – if I may furthermore refer to Oscar Wilde's saying that "fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months".

Therefore, our world seems to be evolving according to an evolutionary algorithm where viability is the adequate economic base, and of course the biggest economic base belongs to whatever addresses the greatest number of people at the same time. From then onwards, the laws of statistics have the upper hand. The bad TV show, or the bad newspaper, drives out the good, just as bad money drives out good money. However, since the balance of our world is dynamic, as that of nature in general, there is always sufficient variety to go around, which conceals this trend from our perception and presents the situation as being constant, so that some can say: it has always been that way.

What is concealed is the predominance of the man Marcuse called one-dimensional, or what Castoriadis called "the rise of insignificance" – which, in a sense, is the rise of privacy, the opposite of the Greek perception of "public", but not only that.

FM: What is the Greek perception of the public?

CM : As I was saying, the rise of privacy comes into conflict with the Greek perception of what is public, but that's not all, because (in reality) what we are actually doing today is projecting, on our understanding of this matter, elements originating from our other, Judeo-Christian, origins, in a way which is more problematic what we think.

Thus, we might conveniently say that, unlike the "individual person", idiotis, (which has ended up meaning idiot in many European languages), the "citizen" is not only interested in himself but he is interested in what is public. But this, for the ancient Greek, does not mean any kind of selflessness – it means, depending on the era, that he aspires to excel in important issues and be glorified, or it means that he himself defends his own interests and the interests of his particular community as well. Thus the "commons" to the Athenians is also, for example, whether an army will be sent to suppress the rebellion of Lesbos, slaughtering men and selling women and children, or if Socrates should drink the poison hemlock because he believes in gods other than those that the city believes in. The citizen, as the French Revolution wanted to revive him, still had such dilemmas, and would accordingly decide to suppress the uprising in Vendée, or to declare the religion of the Supreme Being.

Only Marx, who was, and rightly so, not satisfied with the identification of the citizen with the bourgeois, as resulting from the French revolution, thought that the citizen was the ideal (and ideological) complement of the egoist bourgeois, a sort of replacement mechanism. That is why in his early writings, the philosophical ones, the vision that guides him, – behind the abolishment (Aufhebung) of the internal split of man into a private individual on the one hand and a citizen, with only an ideal sociability, on the other – is the abolishment of the political as such.

The "political" exists only as long as the social nature of man has not yet been realized. While a kernel of the Greek perception is preserved here, that man should not be a private individual, but should be interested in the commons, the context is altered – this Hegelian realization / abolishment of the political is something that is unthinkable for the Greeks, and its origins are in fact biblical. Marx is based at the same time on a unilateral interpretation of history, because in reality the modern bourgeois society / civil society (bürgerliche Gesellschaft) attained its status through religious conflicts and in the name of freedom of conscience, and not merely as an expression of the economic selfishness of the bourgeois / citizen.

That is why, for the non-religious, that is to say, non-fanatic, Keynes, who is the product of exactly this historical development, the proletarian represents a new kind of barbarism, and not the means to the realization of the essence of man. However, while imagining freedom in a way that is reminiscent of the citizen's freedom from "need", in reality Keynes is also projecting newer elements on its concept: the Hellene of the "democratic" era did not have any individual freedom, his freedom was not internal, it was political – he did not have the "legal" status of the slave – and was there to serve the social norm.

FM: What is the new barbarity that the proletarian represents?

CM: Keynes was afraid that the proletarian would erase all of the conquests of

civilization until then. The intensity of the feeling at the time that a new man was being created can be seen inversely, for example, in Ernst Jünger's essay "The Worker", where Jünger consented to the "new man", as did the Communism of his era, though from another starting point.

What Keynes defends contains a lot of conventionality, and it is not altogether worthwhile defending. However, Jünger himself later rather regretted his initial positions, while communism, after at the outset denying tradition, ended up as its preserver – when rock music was flourishing in the western world, the classical music conservatories were flourishing in the east. The result is that nowadays the sense that "civilization" is at risk is diminishing and indeed may even tend to completely disappear within the prevailing generalized culturalism.

If I had to name what is really at stake – that neither Keynes' fear, nor Jünger's or the early communism's expectations bring to light – I would evoke the danger of reaching a point where there is no one for whom the question is still meaningful: if the salt of the earth loses its savor, how could its saltiness be restored?

FM: You write, and very astutely, I admit, that "ethics is becoming the aesthetics of private choices and the art of life, while politics ceases to be politics and has become the dynamic management of the crowd of individuals." Could you please give us some examples?

CM: These formulations are meant as an initial description of homo economicus, or, if you wish, of the situation in which the salt of the earth tends to lose its savor and where the words are maintained but lose their content or, if you will , their savor.

There is no such thing as ethics if deep inside ourselves we believe that man is the product of his environment, that there is no freedom, that there is no Right, etc. What we're left with, is that somebody is happy with himself because he has made one choice, while someone else is happy with another choice. The whole issue is how one can enjoy the life that has been given to him, and not preventing others from doing the same is the only content ethics can have. Thus, in one sense there is no ethics and, in another sense, we call ethical what is actually political.

Accordingly politics turns into population management, because there can be no political action where there is no citizen (since there is no freedom – and even the mere political concept of freedom presupposes, without actually thematizing it, a more primitive one) but only effective social engineering. Politics, therefore, turns into population management, initially in a completely practical sense, that is, how raw materials, energy, etc. will be shared, not necessarily with absolute justice, but with a minimum of it, to at least avoid any pragmatically unfortunate uprisings of the populations – but also in the sense of public opinion management.

That's why politicians monitor public opinion polls, so that they can adapt to public opinion ;, or they may fabricate their own polls so as to influence it :, or they may even show a fake public opinion – it's simply power management, and the struggle of ideas that was once real is repeated today only pretextually.

FM: You suggest that Western societies feel guilt for their privileges but no desire to share their achievements. Then this means that we refer to societies of hypocrisy and guilt. Where can this lead?

CM: There have been societies in the past that were much more cruel than the Western ones, without feeling any guilty about it. Politics has not always considered ethics as a binding factor. This is the case mainly from the Bible onwards – and that's why it still makes sense to call our civilization Judeo-Christian.

The guilt of Western societies shows in a sense that they are not satisfied with the selfishness of the natural human being, but at the same time they have not overcome it. This is to be expected because the demand for overcoming naturalness is moral and is not mechanically relayed by all of society. The mechanisms can only determine what needs to be silenced – hence the hypocrisy – and can control behaviors, but not consciousness – hence the guilt. Sociologically, hypocrisy and guilt make for vulnerable societies.

FM: Why has economy been upgraded into politics?

CM : I attempted in the humble postface, which offered the occasion for your questions, to show, – succinctly, of course, by resorting to a classical essay by Friedman, – why Keynes' expectation that in the future we would end up seeing the economist as a simple expert, a dentist, for example, (so the economy would be limited to what to the ancients was the chrematistike) was lame. But I reserve the right to show in future publications (my publisher has already announced the publication of a volume entitled: Political Apolitical) that there is something akin to a law that can be expressed as follows: the more the apolitical elements you have, the more the political elements will be, and conversely, the fewer the apolitical elements, the fewer the political will be.

By declaring that everything is political, our times have, in fact, reduced politics to economics, thus paving the way for homo economicus, all the while thinking that is not the case. So my answer to your question is twofold: on the one hand, the economy is by nature political, on the other hand we have, without realizing it, confined politics to the economy.

FM: What do you think Greece's position will be in the current globalized system?

CM: The prevalence of homo economicus means that people no longer have the consciousness of a "spiritual" mission.

Is someone Greek because he happens to be "born" to Greek parents (jus sanguinis), or is it because he happens to be born on Greek soil (jus soli)?

What actually matters is not which one of the two contingencies is the case (historically, they have resulted in the "cultural" and the "political" nations respectively) but the fact that happenstance repeated is no longer assumed and redefined as fate; ie redefined with a "must" explained by the simple fact that I can change myself, but I cannot become another.

In their minimal version, "selves" are interchangeable – in fact they are not selves, but defined positions within the system of the real.

Their interchangeability does however have a natural limit: language. As a Greek, you may not know why you "must" be Greek, and not American or Pakistani, but, at some point, sooner or later, you will encounter the natural limit that is language. If you do not speak American or Pakistani, you will be a second-class citizen in the USA or Pakistan, one who will, in time, be assimilated or destined to disappear.

This will be happening tomorrow in the synchronically globalized world, in whose language you will have to express yourself. The synchronically globalized world diminishes the sense of danger by telling you that the only thing that is necessary is to be able to "communicate", thus lowering the language to its minimalist version that corresponds to the minimalist selves that it needs to create – although for some, even "communication" will seem impossible.

Thus, at the other end of homo economicus, an instinct of primitive self-preservation is being developed, for which all the achievements of our past become arguments for survival. But / However this is just another way of betraying them, as the other face of the prevalence of homo economicus.

We are now moving between the two extremes of the culturally colorless, odorless and tasteless homo economicus (who may well have no consciousness of being such) and an atavistic nationalism fixated at the level of simple survival.

As long as the conflict does not end but is prolonged over time, there is, of course, the hope that genuine creation can arise through which the Greek element will continue organically, though this will have to occur in adverse circumstances, since the hegemony of homο economicus does not seem ready to be undermined.

FM: Thank you!

Sometimes politicians say the craziest things, no I am not talking about Donald Trump putting his foot in his mouth so the left-wing media can blow it out of proportion and play the StrawMan Game, rather I am talking about socialist leaning politicians who tell us they can create jobs and fix the economy by making laws, rules, and regulations, increasing taxes and the like? These folks haven’t a clue.

Recently, I heard on of Hillary Clinton’s campaign managers say; “Markets are only able to be made due to REGULATION,” WTH? Which came first? Government regulations destroy markets and the free-market survives in spite of regulations, not because of them. Let me give you a communist example.

The Chinese farmers under communism traded amongst themselves, increased their efficiencies, yields and ate well due to this illegal trading above their allotted surplus, the Communist Government let them do it when they found out, decided not to execute them, learned something. China was then able to feed the people. Communism needs capitalism, free-markets, so does socialism to pay for their populist bribery to continue their rule from overthrow. Regulation doesn’t make markets possible, markets will exist when people have desire to acquire, and that isn’t going away anytime soon even if we are forced into a Borg Civilization that spark will not die.

“Without regulation we get things like the Wall Street Mortgage Crash of 2008,” the campaign manager continued.

Again, WTH? Regarding the 2008 crash, who was it that caused that nightmare? Democrats, they were warned time and time again. Elliot Spitzer caused the removal of Hank Greenberg, and had he still been at the helm of AIG he’d have never let that little office in London insure those mortgage bundles for in some cases 135% of value (stated value). The enablers are mostly all democrats that allowed that bubble to form, similarly we see Student Loans at 1.3 trillion dollars with 40% in the rears over 90-days and now the dems want free college, forgiveness? OMG, this never ends.

Turn the world into a college campus? Only one problem with academia La La Land, it isn’t to borrow your favorite socialist buzz-word “SUSTAINABLE” nor is a fraudulent global warming scheme or the costs associated with re-arranging our energy infrastructure through another healthcare like hijacking. Socialist Elite cannot do anything right, why would we put them in charge of the Global Economy, Saving the Planet, toilet cleaning

The Bush “Ownership Society” comments and beliefs are held by all Americans. Bush didn’t start the problem, it was Clinton’s Administration with changes in rules for investment banks, and changes for Freddie and Fannie. Treasury Secretary Snow addressed Congress on the problems ahead, so too did Greenspan during Bush’s term, but the Democrat control wouldn’t have it. The Lobbying record of Freddie is well documented we know where the money went and to whom. If you want to say that regulation prevents such things, well it was changes in regulation that set up the stage.

Trying argue economics or politics with a leftist socialist neo-liberal is like talking to a Jamaican Bobsled team at max speed, they can’t hear you, they are busy going downhill fast. I guess the worst problem is the leftist just don’t learn from their mistakes, but you’d think they’d have learned from that road to hell they paved last time with the subsidized Good Intentions Paving Company LLC

You can say Golf has had a somewhat shaky history, commonly associated with upper class snobbery golf was not very popular with the common man. Nowadays golf is not only played by the high society and seems to have experienced a boom with the public. Local clubs are reporting huge increases in memberships, online golf equipment and accessories stores are seeing similar gains in sales. There has been much question over the origin of this gain in popularity and why it is occurring now. One explanation for this is that the sports association with snobbery, seemingly originated from the Communist regime. After the fall of Eastern European and Southern American communism, the associated stigma is finally being forgotten.

Communisms ideology was very against the idea of the bourgeoisie and it seemed golf had become the associated sport for the enemy and the elite. Evidence for this was seen in Vietnam when Ho Chi Minh dismissed golf as a bourgeois sport and went on to ban it completely. However this thinking has overturned drastically after the disappearance of communism and there even sits a top golf course in Ho Chi Minh City.

If you have watched Sky recently then you may have also noticed the recent increase in media exposure shown to golf. Also not long ago we saw the first ever sport covered in 3D for domestic viewing, which coincidentally happened to be golf. This is a testament to how popular golf seems to be getting, and I myself have recently taken up the game. I can say for sure that in the majority it has lost its snobbery, and entering the sport is so much easier and as a community they have made me very welcome.

One uplifting image I did come across was of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara playing a round of golf, seen dressed in full military attire on the putting green.

This image did sum it up for me, showing the once objectifying Communist side coming together and playing a once stigmatised sport.

As with every other sport too we have seen increases in technology, gadgets and golfing accessories. You can easily get overwhelmed when buying golfing equipment if you don’t know the difference between your golf push and pull trolleys and your Motocaddy. There is a whole wealth of websites out there offering equipment, and the cheapest will not always give you a decent and quick service.

Klezaras begins the book with an attempt to tie President Reagan, one of the world's most heroic anticommunists, to the communist dictator Pol Pot. This is on its face, an obvious lie. President Reagan constantly spoke about the evil of communism, so how could he possibly form an alliance with a man like Pot? The next chapter is even more slanderous, as the author attempts to tie not one, but three genocides to Reagan.

First in East Timor, followed by Guatemala. This is clearly a ridiculous claim, given Reagan's devotion to human rights all over the world. Though I am aware that recent courts and historical bodies (undoubtedly filled with socialists and Soviet-sympathizers) found that Reagan's allies in the crusade against communism in Central America committed "genocide" against the "Mayan Indians", I would not believe this for a second. He then goes on to accuse the US government of being responsible for Saddam Hussein's attack on the Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s. Yes, Reagan did provide Saddam with weapons, but only because Iraq was fighting the Iran-Iraq war and needed our help to win. What these weapons ended up being used for is really none of our concern in this context. It is sad that civilians were killed but President Reagan had no way knowing this would happen. It is entirely unfair for Mr. Reagan to be blamed for this.

There's a lot more accusations in this book about topics as random as the Pakistani nuclear program and the liberation of Grenada, but it should already be completely clear to you what this is: another liberal trying to make Reagan look bad. Michael Moore tried, Will Bunch tried, and now this Jacob Klezaras wants you to believe that The Great Communicator was some sort of war criminal. To criticize the foreign policy of the man who ended the Cold War and defeated the Soviet Union is utterly ridiculous. The left is obviously scared of Reagan's legacy and the conservative values ​​which are part of it. At first I believed this book was not worthy of my time, but after taking a look at the dangerous slander inside I felt that someone must refute it. I am begging my fellow patriots, please do not allow liberals to rewrite our proud history to suit themselves and please challenge them when they try to. I condemn Mr. Klezaras's book as nothing more than another piece of left-wing propaganda.

The Internet is under attack by the Obama Administration through executive powers. This does not bode well for the Internet entrepreneurs or for political speech. The following is an analysis of how the Internet and specifically Google has created a free world-wide social environment. The governments of the world should study the Internet Society. They might learn something.

Google is known as a search engine for relevant information in the Internet. There are other search engines or browsers such as Yahoo, Explorer, MSN Bing, etc. However, Google is more than that just a browser.

Google has managed to create the foundation of a solid natural and free social environment, a virtual society with no geographical or language barriers.

In the name of fairness, I am strongly biased towards individual freedom. I grew up under communism but more importantly, I witnessed the transition from a free society to communism and the disappearance of freedom. The communist movement expected that all international masses will assume power and become a great world communist system. Had Google and the Internet were around in those days, communism would have embraced it and maybe would have learned something useful: Freedom of the masses can be very constructive. I wish the present politicians would take a look and learn something from the environment Google has created and it is still nurturing.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin started Google in January 1996 as a research project when they were both PhD students at Stanford University in California. Originally, Google ran under the Stanford University website, with the domain google.stanford.edu.

The domain google.com was registered on September 15, 1997. The company was incorporated on September 4, 1998, at a friend's garage in Menlo Park, California.

The Google name comes from "Googol". Googol refers to the number 1 followed by 100 zeros. This is such a large number that can not be achieved if you count all the sand particles on the whole universe. It was supposed to mean an infinity number of people and their interactions with no end in sight. Google runs over one million servers in data centers around the world, and processes over one billion search requests and twenty petabytes (1000 trillion) of user-generated data every day, which is an incredible achievement. Google got started with just $ 100,000 from a private investor.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin had a vision and a dream with a purpose: Match other peoples' dreams and desires with each other, so all can benefit. If a vendor had a good product or service, Google made it easy for the seeking party to find it. A book author could publish and sell a book without going through a publisher. Google made it easier to promote the book. Talented individuals on a shoe string could start a home business over night. There are billions of sites on the Internet with all kinds of information or products for sale. All of that information has been posted by individuals or companies in the expectation to be found and / or shared by interested parties or prospects. Google did not create the information; private parties and institutions did.

Google's mission was to come up with the best possible presentation to any inquiry. This is not a trivial task, certainly not on the Internet. Complex algorithms as well as site ratings are being used to connect requests with delivery sites. Before Google came into existence, the early browsers such as Netscape, MS Explorer, Yahoo and dozens more used straight forward techniques of cataloging words or phrases and associating them with relevant sites. However, when you deal with billions of sites and entries every day, it is very difficult to determine which site provides the best and most relevant information requested through a query. Using Google's browser, the satisfactory result usually comes up on top of the first page out of millions of postings containing similar information. People would very seldom look beyond the first three pages.

Larry Page had an idea: To evaluate pages in the order of importance and relevance, they would count the number of back links to that particular site. The total amount of links and where they were coming from was also important.

For instance, if I were a small contractor designing home theaters and had no money for advertising my business, I would design a website with all sorts of instructions and drawings as a portfolio to help my prospects understand how I would deploy a project. The site will look like a tutorial. The next step would be to contact some major distributors of home theater furniture, electronics, cables, etc. and ask them to link my educational site to theirs and offer it to their customers as an educational tool for a do-it-yourself project. All parties benefit. The same concept works when someone with expertise in a particular field publishes useful information through a variety of electronic publications. The author's link will point to his site and Google will index it and qualify it.

Google calls this new technology PageRank where a website's relevance was determined by the number of pages and the importance of those pages is linked back to the original site.

Google was granted a patent describing their PageRank mechanism. The patent was officially assigned to Stanford University and lists Lawrence Page as the inventor. By 2006 the name "Google" had found its way into everyday language, causing the verb "Google" to be added to the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary, denoted as "to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet. "

This feature was very important in the context of equal social opportunity because it enabled creativity to be distributed throughout the Internet at almost no cost to the creator. Before this technology was deployed, an Internet contender had to spend a lot of advertising dollars to promote his site. Otherwise no one could find it. The search engines did not even index it.

Since 2006, Google has added a wide range of support services and capabilities either through acquisitions or internal development. It is not my intent to do a thorough analysis of all its capabilities. I am going to outline the most important functions and the free tools provided by Google to its subscribers.

Google and its function

Google has been criticized often as being too big and too dominant in the Internet field. The critics usually fail to mention the valuable services Google provides to big and small businesses alike as well as to the individual entrepreneur. Most importantly, it provides real value to the end user, the potential consumer products and services advertised or promoted through the Internet.

Google makes money by providing a sound platform for the advertisers and a wide range of helpful free advertising tools. Google does not advertise. The advertisers do. This is a mutually beneficial relationship.

Google advertising tools

Google Analytics enables website owners to track where and how people use their website with in-depth research into getting users to go where you want them to go. It is a very powerful tool that helps the web designers correct and optimize how the information is organized and presented to prospects by monitoring their behavior while visiting the site.

Google AdSense allows website owners to display these advertisements on their website, and earn money every time ads are clicked. Google automatically places only the ads that are relevant to the content on that page. If a visitor finds any of these ads interesting, they will click and the website owner will collect a small fee. I would like the mention that these ads are offered to advertisers for pennies.

Google AdWords helps advertisers display their advertisements in the Google content network, through either a cost-per-click or cost-per-view scheme. This is a true advertising service with daily monitoring and budget control facilities. An advertiser can set up a series of ads associated with certain keywords and test its performance daily. It is interesting that Google uses a price bidding system. If you bid for a high ranking position on the top page and if your ad attracts more visitors than your competition next to you, Google will gradually decrease your ad cost. It is possible to have a very top position on the page and pay less per click than the rest below you. This encourages creativity and unique content which in turn will make your campaign more successful.

Keywords Services , all the above services would not be very useful unless you have some means of selecting the right keyword and phrases that match what your potential prospectors are looking for. Remember, you respond to written requests. Google has an extensive support service that helps in the selection of the right key words as well as monitoring the number of links associated with your competition. These powerful tools enable you to determine both the demand and the competition based on keywords alone.

There have been other services such as Gmail, Google News, Orkut and more being added as time goes by. There are no limits on creativity in a free social environment such as the one created by Google.

I am not trying to minimize the contributions of other browsers such as Yahoo and Explorer. This article is not really about Google as a browser. It is about the free international society Google has helped create through access to knowledge and economic development.

Economic impact

The cost of running a website could be as low as $ 5.00 per month. Blogs are free and can be used instead. The cost of entering an international business is very low. There are thousands of individuals who make a living by selling books that are often not even their own. Rock bands can record and publish their music for free. I can go on and on. All of it has been made possible, to a certain extent, by Google through its affordable promotional capabilities.

Most importantly, Google has managed to create this social environment because there was no government oversight or regulation. The only self policing policy deals with abuse of services such as spamming. When the Chinese government tried to interfere with its operations, Google decided to get out of China.

Conclusion

Imagine a World Governance where all freedoms are assured: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Commerce and Freedom of Exchange of Ideas and Opinions, (including political). Internet is just that, and Google is the facilitator and the Governance.

Do not allow the government to take this away through some form of regulation in the name of "public good".

Tr Cojoc

The other day I was at a library bookstore and found a copy of the Communist Manifesto, it was a pocket-sized little red book and 94-pages. I thought to myself how far our nation has come towards those scary ideals over the past few decades. Communism is about the most intense scheme against the individual – liberties and freedoms – that anyone could possibly dream up. To those living under it, somehow it makes sense to them, of course their lens of perception is often skewed by a lifetime and generations of indoctrination. Anyway, I took my little red-book to Starbucks and read through it, much of it I had remembered from school years the prior.

When I went home, I decided to write an article about the differences between Communism and Free-Market Capitalism and why in the US we’ve done so well with our approach to civilization and society. I went online to gather up a few quotes that I could cite for this article and downloaded a 62-page version of the Communist Manifesto. About that time, I was tuning into the Clinton News Network or CNN, and there was Hillary Clinton bragging about her 64-page Economic Plan if elected. Mostly it is regurgitated 2008 Obama Campaign plans, much of which the Obama Administration attempted to put into practice with his windfall of TARP Funds and use of his newly gained political capital back in 2009.

Some call the Obama Administration a Tax and Spend regime, but really if one is fair to the reality – it is more like a Spend, Spend, Spend, Borrow, and Tax plan – Hillary’s Economic Plan, essentially the same – the same old Leftists talking points, vote buying socialist strategy and a little communist manifesto mixed in to show ones’ true colors. I find it interesting that Hillary claims Donald Trump is in bed with Putin, when her leftist views are much more in-line with Big Government Communist Motif.

While it is true that Hillary Clinton does have a 64-page economic plan on her website – I say, “So What? The Communist Manifesto is online with 62-pages in a PDF download,” and would suggest that you read it because the similarities are strikingly scary to anyone with half the cranial capacity needed to walk and talk. If you’d like to live in a society of “equals” where everyone is equally poor, and the government controls all aspects of your life, wealth, career, death and itself owns all the property – then by all means vote for Hillary Clinton – if not, Trump should be your choice in 2016.

Khrushchev came into this world on April fifteen, in Kalinovka, 1894, a little Russian village close to the Ukrainian border. At age fourteen he relocated with his family on the Ukrainian mining town of Yuzovka, exactly where he apprenticed as a metalworker as well as doing other odd jobs. Despite his religious upbringing, Khrushchev joined the communist Bolsheviks in 1918, just a year after they'd seized power within the Russian Revolution. During the consequent Russian Civil War, Khrushchev's very first wife, with whom two children they had, died of typhus. He afterwards remarried as well and had 4 more kids.

In 1929 Khrushchev transferred to Moscow, wherever he continuously rose through the Communist Party ranks. Eventually the inner circle of was entered by him Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who by that particular moment had consolidated control over the nation and instituted a bloody purge of perceived opponents. Millions of folks were killed or perhaps imprisoned in Gulag labor camps, as well as many millions more died in famines caused by the forced collectivization of farming.

During World War II, Khrushchev mobilized soldiers to battle Nazi Germany in the Ukraine and at Stalingrad. After the battle, he helped to rebuild the devastated countryside while at the same time stifling Ukrainian nationalist dissent. By time Stalin died in March 1953, Khrushchev had placed himself as a likely successor. 6 weeks later, he became top leader of the Communist Party and probably the most powerful individuals in the USSR.

In the beginning, Khrushchev and other high ranking officials ruled through a type of collective leadership. But in 1955 the ouster of Premier Georgi Malenkov was organized by him and replaced him with an ally, Nikolai Bulganin. Khrushchev foiled a Malenkov led coup attempt in June 1957 and gathered over the premiership the following March.

When a faithful Stalinist, Khrushchev gave an extended speech in February 1956 that criticized Stalin for arresting and deporting opponents, for elevating himself above the gathering and for incompetent wartime leadership, among various other items. This particular withering, albeit unfinished, indictment of Stalin was claimed to stay secret. By that June, nonetheless, the US State Department had printed the complete text. Beginning in 1957, some minor attempts to rehabilitate Stalin's image was made by Khrushchev. But he switched course again in 1961, when the town of Stalingrad was renamed and Stalin's remains have been taken out of Lenin's mausoleum in Moscow's Red Square.

Emboldened by Khrushchev's so called "secret speech," protestors took on the roadways in the Soviet satellites of Hungary and Poland. The Polish revolt was solved fairly peacefully, although Hungarian revolt was violently curbed with tanks and troops. In total, a minimum of 2,500 Hungarians had been murdered in late 1956, and also aproximatelly 13,000 were wounded. Many more fled towards the West, and others have been arrested or perhaps deported.

On the household front, Khrushchev worked out – never successfully – to increase agricultural production and raise living standards. He also reduced the energy of the Soviet Union's dreaded secret police, released a lot of political prisoners, calm artistic censorship, started up much more of the country to international guests as well as inaugurated the space age in 1957 with the launch of the satellite Sputnik . 2 years later, a Soviet rocket landed on the moon, and also in 1961 Soviet astronaut Yuri A. Gagarin became the very first male in space.

A complex relationship with the West was had by Khrushchev. A fervent believer in communism, he nevertheless preferred tranquil coexistence with capitalist nations. Unlike Stalin, he actually went to the United States. Relations between the 2 superpowers deteriorated somewhat in 1960 when the Soviets shot down an American U 2 spy plane deep inside the territory of theirs. The following year, Khrushchev approved the building of the Berlin Wall to be able to prevent East Germans from fleeing to capitalist West Germany.

Cold War tensions reached a top point in October 1962 when the United States found Soviet nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba. Although, after a 13 day standoff, Khrushchev agreed to eliminate the weapons, the planet seemed to be on the brink of nuclear conflict. In return, US President John F. Kennedy, who one season earlier had authorized the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion, publicly consented to not attack Cuba. Kennedy additionally privately agreed to withdraw American nuclear weapons from Turkey. In July 1963, a partial nuclear test ban was negotiated by the United States, the United Kingdom and also the Soviet Union.

Among the sharpest thorns in Khrushchev's edge was fellow communist Mao Zedong, the leader of China. Starting around 1960, the 2 sides engaged in an increasingly vindictive battle of terms, with Khrushchev labeling Mao a "left revisionist" that failed to comprehend modern warfare. The Chinese, meanwhile, criticized Khrushchev as a "psalm singing buffoon" that underestimated the dynamics of Western imperialism.

The clash with China as well as food shortages in the USSR eroded Khrushchev's validity in the eyes of various other high ranking Soviet officials, who were previously bothered by whatever they watched as his erratic inclination to undercut the authority of theirs. In October 1964 Khrushchev was called back again from a holiday in Pitsunda, Georgia, as well as made to resign as both premier and top leader of the Communist Party. Khrushchev wrote the memoirs of his and silently lived out the rest of the days of his before dying of a heart attack in September 1971. Nevertheless, the spirit of his of reform lived on throughout the perestroika era of the 1980s.

The Vietnam War, which lasted from 1945-1975, was the longest conflict that the United States participated in. The war cost the lives of almost 60,000 Americans and almost 2 million Vietnamese. The participation of the US in the said war resulted to the enactment of the War Power Acts of 1973, which required Congressional approval before the President can deploy US forces overseas. Here we will try to find the answer to the question: Why Did the US Enter the Vietnam War?

The primary reason for the participation of the United States in the Vietnam War was to prevent the spread of communism in South Vietnam as part of their widescale strategy of containment. Following the defeat of the French Armada, peace talks were held in Geneva resulting to the granting of independence to Laos and Cambodia and the division of Vietnam into North and South.

The spread of Communism was becoming evident in both local and international front. In the United States, majority of the 1950s saw Americans experiencing the so-called Red Scare, spearheaded by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who was very much opposed to communism.

Meanwhile, on the international scene, every country in Eastern Europe had started to embrace communism after the end of World War II. It began with China followed by countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. From there, the US began to implement the philosophy of containment as they felt that they were losing the Cold War.

With that in mind, the United States began sending its first batch of military advisers to assist France in its war against Communism in North Vietnam. Simultaneously, the United Nations and the US had launched operations against North Korean and Chinese forces in the Korean War.

For France, their battle against North Korea was not to stop the spread of communism, like what the Americans did, but for the maintenance of colonial power and to re-establish their national pride after being humiliated during the Second World War. When it became obvious to the French that any attempts to keep Indochina as a colony in the expense of blood was futile, France pulled out its troops in 1954.

On the other hand, the United States saw the need for it to consolidate its forces in its desire to rid Vietnam of Communism. It intensified its efforts of sending increased amounts of war ammunitions and also bolstered its sending of military advisers in support of South Vietnam. Slowly but surely, the Americans were dragged into an all-out shooting war. They even allowed military advisers to fire back on anyone who fired at them.

In 1965, deployment of US troops commence and by April 1969, a total of 543,000 soldiers were dispatched in Vietnam. The United States became involved in the conflict until 1975, when the southern city of Saigon fell into the hands of the Communist North Vietnam. To this very day, the answers to the question why did the US enter the Vietnam War is still a puzzle and if the deployment of the US forces was justifiable.

Vladimir Lenin has an important place in the 20th century. Unfortunately, his name is associated with more negative qualities than positive qualities. He was an intellectual with a formidable brain and he wrote many books and papers during his time in Russia. He ushered in what is called the communist state but that state created by him collapsed within 5 decades of his death and now Russians feel that Lenin led them up the garden path into a state which was tyrannical and had restricted personal freedom.

Lenin and Russia

Lenin remains a historical figure in Russia and his body on his death was embalmed and kept in the mausoleum in Red Square. Any dignitary visiting Russia was dutifully taken to visit the mausoleum of Lenin on Red Square After the collapse of communism and the breakup of Russia into 18 countries the realization dawned on the Russian people that Lenin had led them up the garden path. There were many who wanted the body from the mausoleum to be removed like Stalin. People will recollect that Stalin’s body was also kept in the mausoleum in Red Square along with that of Lenin but after Nikita Khrushchev became first Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, the body was removed and is now buried in the crypt in the Kremlin wall.

The mausoleum of Lenin is no longer a place of pilgrimage for those who come to Moscow and the Russian government spends no money to maintain the mausoleum. It is maintained by the Communist Party of Russia with its own funds. it’s a moot point how long the body will remain in Red Square as there are many demands to remove the body from there. There is no doubt that Lenin did electrify the world in 1917, in what is known as the as the October revolution. This revolution which was supposed to give a lot of hope to the Russian people, unfortunately, did exactly the opposite. The Russian people came under the jackboots of the Communist Party through the Secret police, the NKVD and people began to fear the Midnight knock. Lenin was responsible for creating the police state so excellently brought out brought out by George Orwell in his book 1984.

The man

Lenin was an intellectual, nobody will deny that but his mind was warped and there are some facts which cannot be condoned. There is some evidence that when he was the dictator of Russia, he may have ordered the murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his children in Siberia. The Tsar who was a prisoner of the Communist Party was shot dead along with his family on the pretext or being taken for a family photo. The house of Romanoff was finished and many Russians even now shudder at this.

Lenin has another distinction. He is the first man in world history to have brought into effect the concentration camp. This is very sad as Russia has a great tradition and certainly having a concentration camp is not is not something to be proud of.

Lenin was not much concerned about India and there is no evidence that he mentioned about India anytime in any of his writings or speeches. For him, India was a nonexistent country and he always considered it to be a part of the British Empire. Lenin had no respect for any of the Indian leaders during his time including Gandhi, Tilak, or Gokhale. In India, we have the Communist Party of India which initially was an extension of the Russian Communist Party. This party is known to have been an anti-Nationalist party and during the famous Quit India Movement of 1942, Communist Party of India supported the British. This is a historical fact and most of the communist leaders on direction from Moscow supported the British rule at that time.Britain was an ally of Russia in the battle against Nazi Germany and the Russian government had instructed the Communist Party of India not to create trouble for the British.

Lenin and India

The Communist Party of India was just like a fifth column in the Indian subcontinent, Even in the 1962 war with China, the Communist Party of India never came out in support of Indian case against China and generally supported China. These facts of history cannot be brushed under the carpet. This party claims to be an intellectual party and considering Bengalis themselves to be more intellectual have repeatedly voted them into power. The CPI agenda was simple – to create a separate state in India and hence very little development was done. The purpose was to create a divide in the country. The party generally lionized Lenin. I have already written Lenin was never interested in India or Indian Independence. There is no record that Lenin ever said that India should be a free country. These facts are in the history books. Lenin died in 1924 and was succeeded by Joseph Stalin. Even Stalin was not interested in India until his death in 1953. He considered Indian leaders like Gandhi and Nehru as the running dogs of British imperialism

The state created by Lenin had no permanence and within 5 to 6 decades of his death, the communist state created by him collapsed like a pack of cards. Russian’s realized that there was no personal freedom and the entire Russian was like a massive concentration camp so nicely brought out by Boris Pasternak and Alexander Solzetsysian. They brought to light in their books and novels a state which is built on sand and was bound to collapse and the Russian State built by Lenin collapsed. Lenin cannot have a permanent place in history because he was basically a failure. The title of the great will elude him for all time to come

Last word

In India we have lopsided properties and when the BJP which came to power in Tripura and toppled two statues of Lenin there has been a hue and cry as if Lenin was very much part of the Indian psyche. The real fact is that he was not interested in India. yet it is a matter of great regret that Lenin is being greater importance in India than in Russia. Can anyone forget that over 150 Statues Of Lenin were toppled in Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism? Lenin was certainly a historical figure and an important figure of the 20 century but he probably falls in the same bracket as Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo and that is not a very happy thought