An article in Los Angeles Times, 25 November 2005, features a likeness of V. I. Lenin on the front page. Neither the caption nor the entire article contain one word which might put the activities by that man to any question.

Some of the facts the article does not tell the reader :

1) Vladimir Oulianoff alias Lenin and his group had gained the political power in Russia 1917 by fraudulent means.

Having been sent in April 1917 to Russia in order the sabotage the Russian war effort (1914-18), and also operating on his own purposes, Mr. Oulianoff alias Lenin was first responsible for the �uprising� in July 1917 in Petrograd which was �accompanied by violence and murders� — according to a statement by the Russian prosecutor.

That was followed by the successful coup in October 1917, which was accompanied by nearly total disorganization of the Russian army and by more violence and murders among the civilians. Followed sudden and sharp economic collapse, and the eventual abandonment by Mr. Lenin of his 'ideology' ("New Economic Policy" -- so-called — which contained nothing new in it except non-continuation with some of the most blatant Marxian idiocies).

2) Josif Vissarionovich Dzugashvill alias Stalin, mentioned in the article without one word of disapproval, had been directly or indirectly responsible for killing about 66 million Soviet citizens (Source : Professor I.A. Kurganov, in A. Avtorhanov, Kremlin Empire (Vilnius: Pravda, 1990), p. 200, as given by Russian sources).

3) Mao Tse-tung, mentioned in the article without one word of disapproval, had been directly or indirectly responsible for killing about 80 million Chinese persons — according to the �The Five Commentaries� published by an independent China-related human rights organization. (See also "Mao : The Unknown Story" by Jung Chang and J. Halliday).

One might question the exact criteria used for compiling such statistics, but it does not seem open to doubt that either of the mentioned men had been responsible for killing tens of millions of human beings. The article published by Los Angeles times gives no slightest hint to this effect. Follow parts of the article with a few comments by me.

W. Paul Tabaka, 26 Nov 2005 (revised).

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-gifts25nov25,1,2464184.story

From No Gift Is Too Small for Them, By Mark Magnier, Times Staff Writer
( Los Angeles Times 25 November 2005 )

MT. MYOHYANG, North Korea
. . . the elder Kim is so beloved that the gifts still pour in 11 years after his death. Add them up, and over the decades you have a dizzying 219,370 gifts for the Great Leader and 53,419 for the Dear Leader from around the globe. . . .

The facades of the main buildings look like traditional Korean structures, but the museum is really a fortress. A close examination finds the windows merely painted on, to foil intruders. Guards stand at the 4.5-ton doors, their silver-plated machine guns loaded. The location deep in the mountains helps protect against bombings, we're told. No need to ask who . . . . they're worried about.

Comment   The author clearly (albeit in a "cute" roundabout fashion) gives that �they� are worried about the U.S.A. Is that really so ? How come ?

Would anybody in the U.S. care about bombing King Kim�s train carriage got from Stalin ? or any other loot stolen from the 'bourgeoisie' and/or from the defrauded 'proletariat' ?

(On some reflection, at a later date : it seems possible that some dishonest — or criminal — newspapers in Korea might have been monging some kind of American scare ; this is a mere conjecture — but in the context of the exploits by various newspapers round the world — the knowledge whereof can be gleaned from some reliable historic publications — this would seem somewhat likely.)

As the scope of the collection confirms, the Kims have not discriminated. . . . .

The collection provides a trip back in time . . . On prominent display are offerings from many of Kim Il Sung's closest communist allies.

Josef Stalin gave a beautifully appointed train carriage in August 1945, the first international gift Kim Il Sung received en route to power. . . . . Not to be outdone, Mao weighed in a few years later with a Chinese train carriage. "Mao pays homage to Kim Il Sung!" a placard reads.

Comment   �It took the Americans decades to even come up with a fruit bowl�, also says the above paragraph.

My question : why should the Americans hie to join (a) the greatest mass-murderer in the recorded human history (Dzugashvilli alias Stalin) and/or (b) one of the greatest frauds in the recorded human history (Mao Tse-tung), in the ranks of the cheerful givers — to the man who had usurped power in North Korea owing to the assistance of those two criminals ?

A few rooms away we find a limousine Stalin gave Kim Il Sung. . . . Down the hall is a bear pelt decked out with a white lace collar, a gift from the late Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu that lends insight into Kim Il Sung's modest side. . . . Rounding out the collection are a crocodile briefcase from Cuban leader Fidel Castro, a model Sputnik from Leonid I. Brezhnev and a circa 1980 portable stereo from the Chinese leadership. . . .

The gifts chart North Korean diplomacy. The more lavish offerings from communist bloc countries tail off by the late 1980s. A decade later, however, rooms start filling up with South Korean electronics, furniture and golf clubs as North-South relations improve.

International media often report that North Korea is isolated diplomatically. The scope of the collection and a map with twinkling lights marking the scores of gift-giving countries appear aimed at suggesting otherwise. Some international friendships are better than others, however. The big-ticket items from the Kims' communist pals far outshine the glass bowl given by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a small dish and plate from former President Carter and a diminutive glass "global news" orb from CNN.

Has President Bush sent a special something for Kim Jong Il? "As of yet, it has not come," our guide says.

Comment   Perhaps some technology, the better to enable the North Korean (or some other) Marxists to bomb the author of this piece of overt communistic propaganda and those responsible for publishing it. But I for one would certainly prefer not to be involved.

WPT

"The facades of the main buildings look like traditional Korean structures, but the museum is really a fortress. A close examination finds the windows merely painted on, to foil intruders. Guards stand at the 4.5-ton doors, their silver-plated machine guns loaded. The location deep in the mountains helps protect against bombings, we're told, etc."

The Hypothesis   That part of the article may very well have been entirely true.

E.g. "the windows merely painted on [the rock?], to foil intruders", etc.

Please note that the marxist-leninist leaders were never supposed personally to enrich themselves. Which they usually did, anyway (except some few "true believers" — who were few indeed).

King Kim apparently did not in the least hesitate personally to enrich himself. However, was that a circumstance that would be permitted to be known to the 'proletariat' of the Northern part of Korea ?

Most likely not. I would tend to think that the camouflage had originally no other purpose than hiding the fortune of this dictator from "his own" people.

WPT, 27 July 2006