Putin subverting US Government! (HOT)

"a new Russian propaganda machine, aimed at leading nations and built like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Long-term-wise, the Council for Business Cooperation is expected to lobby Russia’s major strategic interests in the United States. A special attention will be given to the creation and fostering strong informal relations with key figures of the American establishment, business elite and journalists."

Well, this is a good move on their part. As I have been posting on this site for over a year, Russia has a deep and powerful influence over the American Left. They started building it in the 20s and 30s and numerous instances of Russian penetration of our society were uncovered through the 40s and 50s.

By the 1960s, the Russians had reached the point where no more instances of Russian penetration of our society were reported publicly. Partly this was a result of refinement out their penetration techniques---but mainly it was just a question of the Russians having so much influence in our media, in academia, etc. that people became increasingly reluctant to talk about what was going on. After all, does any clearheaded person with common sense really believe that the New Left of the 1960s was not under Russian influence? I have been told that the CIA uncovered connections between the Weatherman and Russia, but this is just hearsay, I have seen no published evidence to this effect.

As the groups talking about Russian penetration of American society became small "splinter groups", it became easy for the Russians to penetrate those groups and turn them aside from any useful purpose.

These all are multiple advantages to the current system they are putting into place. No longer would it be possible for a researcher to discover a "smoking gun" to reveal the powerful influence the Russians are having on American society. By setting up a legitimate linkage between the Russian government and people in the American society they wish to influence, the Russians can de-emphasize former methods of control---particularly people traveling outside the United States to be indoctrinated, debriefed, etc.

These methods, while secure in their operation, left a trail. Consider Bill Clinton's travels through Eastern Europe and Russia in the 1970s.

In addition, covert Leftist penetration into American society is moving outside its traditional boundaries. The Republican Party is starting to be be infiltrated by covert leftists, to an extent. I would be very surprised if fundamentalist Christian sects are not also beginning to be penetrated. The leftist influence and big corporations does not have to be speculated about---numerous overt examples exist. All of this will be aided greatly by this new organization.

The question, as before, is a simple one. Will conservative Republicans acknowledge this covert Russian assault on the fabric of American society, or will they continue to attribute the Left to things such as "cultural Marxism", the "decline of society", etc?

America is under attack by a foreign power, just as Europe was before it, and it is the same power. We conservative Republicans have the capability of victory in this struggle---but we cannot win this struggle without identifying our enemy and speaking his name openly to each other. If conservative Republicans can not understand that the Russians are behind what is going on in the Left in America, our society will be destroyed.

To exit from my Ping list, just send me one request to that effect, public or private.

Don't forget Aldrich Ames and that other guy, the one in the navy, as concrete examples of Russian penetration. It is certain that with Jimmy Carter and especially with Clinton, since they admitted as much, that agents of the Clintons were planted throughout our government and switched from poteical appointee jobs to those proteced by Civil Service, meaning impossible to get rid of.

We know they have been content to infiltrate our government and society slowly and covertly. It is obvious in the areas you have mentioned and in academics, journalism, NGOs, and even the churches. Whast is less obvious is the penetration of businesses, as you said, because "eveil big business" is their sworn enemy.

Alothough David Horowitz and others have been excellent in uncovering and pointing out the many areas of influence and the people involved, there is one tactic they are usng that I haven't seen exposed elsewhere. That is the secondary effect of their control of much of academia.

We have been made aware that they promote leftwing ideas from grade school forward and that it intensifies in high school and colleges. We have also seen that those who agree with them are awarded the higher grades and those who don't are punished with lower grades.

Who gets priority for entrance into college? minorities, their carefully groomed vicim groups through affirmative action, and the other students with the highest grades. Who has the highest grades? Those whom they have arranged to have them, those who agree with the leftist agenda.

Who gets the highest grades in college? The same folkds. When hiring recenbt grads what do corporations look for? The highest performers. Who are those. You have it, the left leaners.

As a result, the left is overly represented in all disciplines in our society. Only those who are brought back to earth by reality or those who were faking it all along become conservatives.

"Who gets priority for entrance into college? minorities, their carefully groomed vicim groups through affirmative action, and the other students with the highest grades. Who has the highest grades? Those whom they have arranged to have them, those who agree with the leftist agenda.

Who gets the highest grades in college? The same folkds. When hiring recenbt grads what do corporations look for? The highest performers. Who are those. You have it, the left leaners."

Interesting angle. I'll admit I hadn't thought of that.

Overt conservatives have been turned into a persecuted minority in our schools, is what you're saying. True, some conservative students are hiding it---but that just makes the leftist influence of the authorities and the left wing students even greater. Hence, the greater likelihood of students without clear training in this regard ending up as leftists. (This is just one angle resulting from what you're talking about.)

Let me relate a little story. Perhaps a decade ago, my friend's son was having trouble with his high school math. I started tutoring him. Well you know, I'm middle-aged and going back to stuff like this is not so easy. But I couldn't help but be struck at at how devilishly difficult the word problems were. Sure, some were problems were always heard for me and most students. I still remember from my high school days, the problems about different sized pipes delivering water into a room at different rates and how fast the water level rises, etc., not that I remember how to solve them.

But as I looked at these problems, I started to realize there was something different going on here. The problems we had in high school were difficult because it is hard sometimes to apply the mechanics of math to what is going on and the world---even if the solution utilizes formulas you know how to use.

But these problems were different. They were deliberately constructed to be as confusing as possible, based in large part on the language used. I was astonished to uncover this. In other words, the people who constructed these problems were trying to send these high school students the message that they could not do math---even if they could. At least, this is my interpretation.

Just one small detail about what can happen when people serving Russia takeover America's educational system.

"Yeah, this is known.. During 2nd Chechnya war there were instances that russian military choppers allowed "chechen" troops to leave even protecting them from Russian ground forces."

Quite interesting. In his book, The Perestroika Deception, Anatoly Golitsyn, former high-ranking member of the KGB who defected in 1961, analyzed the news coverage from Chechnya from the perspective that major conflicts being reported appeared to be fake conflicts---that is to say, not really happening at all or happening on a much smaller scale than reported.

p.225:

'"...why, given the vast military and secret police experience at their disposal, did the Russians choose to dispatch to Chechnya in the first place, inexperienced young Soviet army draftees who put up a poor performance in front of Western television cameras? Why were the Russian special forces who, for example, captured general Pal Maleter during the Hungarian upheaval of 1956, too inept to capture any of the Chechen leaders? How did the Chechen fighters come to be so well armed? Why did the army and Ministry of the Interior troops not take immediate action to surround the city of Grozny and cut off the one route which remained available for the movement of Chechen fighters and supplies in an out of the city center?

"Why, with their huge preponderance of firepower, did it take the Russians so long to capture the Presidential Palace, the symbolic center of Chechen resistance? Why, before the palace fell, were Chechen defenders, according to their own accounts, allowed to leave, taking their Russian prisoners with them, so that they were free to continue struggle elsewhere? Why was the bombardment of buildings in the center of Grozny conducted with what Chancellor Kohl described as "senseless madness"? And why, as the Chechen fighters took to the hills, was a local guerrilla leader willing to receive a Western journalists in his own home in a mountain village without disguise, providing his full name and a history of his family? [The New York Times, 20 January, 1995].

"...The important general point is that Western press and TV representatives reported the events as Westerners observing what they took to be a real conflict and a free society. It is not their own fault that they were not briefed concerning the possibilities of provocation long communist lines. Hence they were not looking for evidence of mock confrontations, faked casualties, or planted information. The prominent Western reporters themselves, though courageous, appeared young and lacking in experience as war correspondents.

"Nevertheless, some revealing items surfaced in the coverage. For example, the New York Times reported on 15 January that "some of the least serious" of the Chechen fighters "would parade before the cameras" at the The Minutka traffic circle. That report prompted questions as to how many serious Chechen fighters were actually involved an action against Russian troops. Another report insisted that the "last Western reporters" had left the area of the Presidential Palace, where the "murdererous fighting" was concentrated and the Chechen fighters were no longer able to move easily to the south of the city in order to briefed journalists about what was happening. It seems therefore that there were no Western eyewitnesses to the "final battle" for the Palace, and did much of the evidence of the fighting was derived from Chechen fighters, whose reliability reporters were in no position to assess.

Two Western reporters were killed during these events. Though these deaths were reported as accidental, the fact is that Russians would have no compunction about eliminating Western journalist if they thought they might be liable to expose their provocation. It was no coincidence that 40 Russian rockets were targeted at and hit, the Minutka circle, which up to that moment had been favored for meetings between journalists and fighters. Almost certainly, Russian officers who told journalists that they had arrived in Grozny without maps were briefed to tell this tall story. A Russian General who was shown on television going through photographs taken by reporters, said the pictures they had taken were useful because they helped him to assess what was going on in Grozny. In all likelihood, he was checking to make sure that the photographs taken by reporters conveyed the images the Russians wanted conveyed for international public consumption.

The spectacular and continuous bombardment of buildings in the center of Grozny, many of them probably empty, struck me as deliberately designed to monopolize television cameras, replicating in many ways the "Reichstag Fire" bombardment of the "White House", in Moscow in October 1993."'

Golitsyn goes on to say that he believes the casualty figures were faked.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.