Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Communism Fake Its Own Death in 1991?
American Thinker ^ | January 16, 2010 | Jason McNew

Posted on 01/15/2010 10:36:18 PM PST by neverdem

In a bizarre 1984 book, ex-KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted the liberalization of the Soviet Bloc and claimed that it would be a strategic deception. Let's examine the facts.

In his spy book Wedge, Mark Riebling claims that "of Golitsyn's falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993 -- an accuracy rate of 94 percent" [1]. Riebling's statistic, compiled from Golitsyn's 1984 book New Lies for Old, has been used in several other books and articles (including here at AT) since Wedge was first published in 1994.

New Lies for Old is not light reading, and all of Golitsyn's predictions appear in the last two chapters, some 327 pages in. Golitsyn began drafting the manuscript in 1968 [3], completed it in 1980 [9], cleared the CIA in 1982 [2], and then finalized and published it in 1984 with seven additional pages [10].

Golitsyn published his second book, The Perestroika Deception, after the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. This book contained further analysis of the liberalization, in addition to previously classified memoranda submitted by Golitsyn to the CIA. The two books must be read together to get a complete picture of Golitsyn's thesis.

Despite taking 22 years to write and publish New Lies for Old, Golitsyn nonetheless asserted that "the substance of the argument has changed little since 1968" [4]. Put simply, Golitsyn's argument was that beginning in about 1960, the Soviet Union embarked on a strategy of massive long-range strategic deception which would span several decades and result in the destruction of Western capitalism and the erection of a communist world government. Throughout his works, he refers to this future event as "convergence" [5]. On page 339 appears a series of Goltisyn's predictions:

The "liberalization" would be spectacular and impressive.  Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party's role:  its monopoly would be apparently curtailed.  An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced.  The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power, and the president of the Soviet Union and the first secretary of the party might well be separated.  The KGB would be "reformed."  Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government.

Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach aboard.  The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers' unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions.  Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party.  Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties

There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel.  Western and Unitized Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.

Golitsyn concluded that "the deceptive liberalization will be accepted as genuine and spontaneous and will be blown up out of all proportion by the media" [11].

These fifteen predictions are from just one page and most foretelling of events then ten years away. I chose to cite this particular page because many of the readers here at AT would be able to readily identify these claims empirically as true or not true. Of particular note are Golitsyn's predictions of separate legislative, executive, and judicial powers -- Americans would naturally embrace such a move by the Soviets wholeheartedly (and without asking questions). Making such claims about the Soviet Union in 1980 was no less absurd than would be making similar claims about North Korea today.

Foretelling the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev, Golitsyn wrote:

One cannot exclude that at the next party congress or earlier, Andropov will be replaced by a younger leader with a more liberal image who will continue the so called "liberalization" more intensively [6].

In a July 1984 memo to the CIA, Golitsyn writes: 

The Soviet strategists may replace the old leader, Konstantin Chernenko, who is actually only a figurehead, with a younger Soviet leader who was chosen some time ago as his successor -- namely, Comrade Gorbachev. One of Gorbachev's primary tasks will be to carry out the so-called liberalization [12].

Comrade Gorbachev took office as leader of the Soviet Union the following year.

Golitsyn also gave clues on the eventual replacement of Boris Yeltsin, describing the Chechnyan crisis "not as a likely cause of a military coup, but as a possible planned prelude to a change of government" [13]. Yeltsin resigned unexpectedly on New Year's Eve in 1999, installing then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency. Putin was elected just months later, riding a wave of Russian nationalist sentiment stemming from renewed hostilities in Chechnya.

Critics will rightfully point out that the timeframes in Golitsyn's books are wrong -- he postulated the emergence of a radical left U.S. government around 1992 and "convergence" by about 2000 [14], and he states throughout his works that NATO would be dissolved, causing U.S. forces to leave Europe. He also predicted a military alliance between the U.S. and China [7]. Taken as a complete work, however, Golitsyn got most of it right.

So how did Golitsyn do it? He explains it this way:

The assessment has been based partly on secret information available only to an insider; partly on an intimate understanding of how the communist strategist thinks and acts; partly on knowledge of political readjustments, the use of strategic disinformation, and the extent of KGB penetrations of, and influence on, Western governments; and partly on research and analysis, using the new methodology, of open records of Soviet and communist developments over the last 20 years [8].

There is other evidence that corroborates Golitsyn's thesis. In his 1982 book We Will Bury You, Czech defector Jan Sejna also claimed the Berlin Wall would be torn down and the Warsaw Pact dissolved for reasons of deception [15]. Additionally, there are the 1992 and 2005 Mitrokhin Archives. More recently, weird 25-year-old videos of another KGB defector detailing a decades-long process of purposeful U.S. demoralization by Soviet intelligence services have appeared on You Tube.

Jeff Nyquist, an independent writer and the author of the worst-selling book Origins of the Fourth World War, seems to be the only Western journalist who not only noticed but paid much attention to Golitsyn. Nyquist has written hundreds of articles discussing both Golitsyn's thesis and the slow moral and economic decay of America. Nyquist and Golitsyn both dedicated books to J.J. Angleton, who in 1954 founded the CIA's counterintelligence division.

The present moral and economic bankruptcy emanating from Washington, D.C. and plaguing America portends something far more dangerous than the unintended consequences of electing so many ideological flunkies with bad educations and misguided ideals. The purpose of warfare is not to kill and maim your enemy; it is his social, economic, political, and religious reorientation. Somewhere Sun Tzu is smiling, and it isn't at America.

Jason McNew is a 36-year-old IT professional. He can be contacted at

TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; Russia
KEYWORDS: coldwar2; communism; convergence; golitsyn; jrnyquist; putin; russia; sovietunion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
To: neverdem

No, it didn’t.

We simply failed to do anything about the useful idiots.

101 posted on 04/10/2010 7:30:50 AM PDT by Terpfen (FR is being Alinskied. Remember, you only take flak when you're over the target.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lizol; Lukasz; strategofr; GSlob; spanalot; Thunder90; Tailgunner Joe; propertius; REactor; ...
Russia/Soviet/Coldwar2 PING!!!

To be added to or removed from this list, please FReepmail me...

102 posted on 04/10/2010 7:38:56 AM PDT by Thunder90 (Fighting for truth and the American way...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So let’s say I know a couple whose marriage is on the rocks and I claim that they have a strategy to put it back together. I predict we will see them spend more time apart, use different checking accounts, and spend time with the kids individually rather than as a couple. All designed to reduce friction between them and allow the relationship to revive itself.

But instead of carrying out this strategy, the bottom falls out and they get a divorce. So now they’re living apart, they’re using their own checking accounts, and they alternate custody of the kids.

Have I been proven correct? Is their marriage on track to be a world beater? Are they carrying out their strategy?

That’s kind of what Golitsyn’s predictions bring to mind.

103 posted on 04/10/2010 7:43:45 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem


104 posted on 04/10/2010 7:47:08 AM PDT by Touch Not the Cat (Where is the light? Wonder if it's weeping somewhere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Communism is one of two globalist elite ideologies used to drive toward the new world order (the other being fascism).

The difference between fascism and communism is not like day and night as liberal socialists purport it to be; fascism and communism are like brothers of evil.

Why did communism fake its death at the collapse of the Soviet Union? Let me tell you this: The 'death' of communism was faked because the globalist elite had used the ideology to clash with capitalism during the 45 year long Cold War. It had served its purpose.

From the end of the Cold War through to the present day, the globalists would merge capitalism (blue) with communism (red) to produce fascism (purple); the ideology of the one world order.

Think Nazi Germany, times that by 100.

105 posted on 04/10/2010 8:08:18 AM PDT by myknowledge (B.H. Obama's just a frontman. A frontman for who? The globalist elite, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yes and all the while communism was spreading here in the USA.

106 posted on 04/10/2010 8:31:33 AM PDT by freedomfiter2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; ...
I feel that we should put Anatoly Golitsyn on Facebook, as in "Golitsyn; become a fan!"

My addiction to his books and theory cost me at least a couple of girlfriends, and I sure would love to be "vindicated" before leaving the planet.

OTOH, he and vodka did drive James Jesus Angleton nuts and caused a massive rift in our intelligence apparatus over whether or not Nosenko was a real or fake defector.

Nosenko, (Fake Defector, IMHO) was sent here to "sell" the CIA the the story that the the KGB "Knew nothing about Lee Harvey Oswald," among other disinformative tales, some partially true, others made of whole cloth. Unfortunately, CIA Policy was to accept him as real. Those who questioned were drummed out of the service.

Golitsyn? Batting pretty damn near a 1000 in his "predictions." Nutty? Yeah. Just don't bet against him!

107 posted on 04/10/2010 8:34:17 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Obama. He'll bring back States' Rights. In the meantime, this ain't gonna be pretty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo; fieldmarshaldj; neverdem; LibertyRocks; stephenjohnbanker; potlatch; devolve; ...


108 posted on 04/10/2010 8:36:15 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Obama. He'll bring back States' Rights. In the meantime, this ain't gonna be pretty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It’s not about Communism, it’s about Russian power, be it Czars or Commissars or Putin.

109 posted on 04/10/2010 8:36:21 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So does that mean Reagan didn’t win the Cold War after all without firing a shot as Mrs. Thatcher claimed?

The American people will endorse communism so long as it is not labeled “communist”. Huey Pierce Long, Jr., once said that ehe people could in time become “fascist” but call it “anti-fascism”.

110 posted on 04/10/2010 8:42:10 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

There is no evidence of “pretending to collapse” in the late 20th century USSR. There is evidence of an actual collapse. There is also evidence of attempt at reform (glasnost and perestroyka) that got out of Kremlin’s control, but that is not the same as pretending.

People who lead us to serfdom are not agents of Komintern. They are homegrown idiots, community organizers with lust for power, and apparatchiks who enable them, who might occasionally borrow an idea or two from Lenin and Trotzky. Understand that while the Gulag and the single-ideology state are not attractive, some elements of marxism are attractive to very many. For example, many, possibly a majority, of Americans want socialized medicine, banking and education, a solid majority wants the pension system run by the state, nearly all want separation of church and state. These are all building blocks of marxism, but people who want them are not marxists, let alone agents of a foreign power. They simply want a free lunch, a naturally occuring human condition.

111 posted on 04/10/2010 9:14:10 AM PDT by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

For us in America it is very much about Communism. However, you are very correct, in my opinion, that the post-Suslov Soviet elite, those who rose through the ranks in the 70s and ended up on top in the 80s were not communist ideologues but rather nationalists and imperialists. Their main concern was preservation of the soviet spheres of power around the Kremlin. Putin, for example, considers the disintegration of the Soviet Union the greatest tragedy of the 20c, not unlike some Anglophile would consider the disintegration of the British empire a great tragedy. But Putin would readily acknowledge that the soviet economic system was unworkable. This is another argument against Golitsyn’s analysis.

112 posted on 04/10/2010 9:27:17 AM PDT by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Obama is empowering the relics overseas. We have a form of communism now at home. Obama has got to go. 2012 will be too late.

113 posted on 04/10/2010 9:35:25 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops....and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56
Communism wasn’t DEAD... it just moved to USA and Hid in the ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT

...not to mention in the workings of the Dept. of Education, universities and nationalized school administrators. Ayers has been alive, well-funded and preaches on.


114 posted on 04/10/2010 9:42:05 AM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DontTreadOnMe2009

I wonder if the FBI has (had) a file on BO? Hmmmmmmmmm.

115 posted on 04/10/2010 9:53:25 AM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (I don't have a 'Cousin Pookie'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Gee, the bullet holes in Nicolae Ceausescu’s head looked pretty real...

And the evil sonovabitch in the White House is real.

116 posted on 04/10/2010 10:13:55 AM PDT by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: devere

Russia and China are now capitalist in their fashion.

The communists became journalists, environmentalists and Democrats and took over the USA. Now we’re attempting a counterrevolution. It’s all quite obvious.

Communism is like Cancer. It spreads out but is still Cancer.

117 posted on 04/10/2010 10:18:37 AM PDT by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
No, it did not.

Capitalism remains alive and well and communism remains as dead as a doornail.

But conspiracy theorists have lots of time on their hands...

118 posted on 04/10/2010 10:34:10 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem


"the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" -Russian leader Vladimir Putin on the collapse of the Soviet Union...
"World democratic opinion has yet to realize the alarming implications of President Vladimir Putin's State of the Union speech on April 25, 2005, in which he said that the collapse of the Soviet Union represented the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

119 posted on 04/10/2010 10:49:32 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The left keeps regrouping and coming back. It doesn’t require a conspiracy. It doesn’t need to play dead. It just waits for an opportunity for a power play. All it takes is a few determined nuts and a quorum of useful idiots.

120 posted on 04/10/2010 10:50:44 AM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Russia's Leaders See China as Template for Ruling
New York Times ^ | October 17, 2009 | CLIFFORD J. LEVY

MOSCOW — Nearly two decades after the collapse of the Communist Party, Russia’s rulers have hit upon a model for future success: the Communist Party.

Or at least, the one that reigns next door.

Like an envious underachiever, Vladimir V. Putin’s party, United Russia, is increasingly examining how it can emulate the Chinese Communist Party, especially its skill in shepherding China through the financial crisis relatively unbowed.

United Russia’s leaders even convened a special meeting this month with senior Chinese Communist Party officials to hear firsthand how they wield power. ..."

“The accomplishments of China’s Communist Party in developing its government deserve the highest marks,” Aleksandr D. Zhukov, a deputy prime minister and senior Putin aide, declared at the meeting with Chinese officials on Oct. 9

(Excerpt)

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."

121 posted on 04/10/2010 10:53:41 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Capitalism remains alive and well and communism remains as dead as a doornail. But conspiracy theorists have lots of time on their hands...

Dead as a doornail? Are you campaigning for FR's Useful Idiot of the year award?

122 posted on 04/10/2010 10:56:40 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

123 posted on 04/10/2010 11:00:12 AM PDT by COUNTrecount (Barry...above his poi grade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Russian nuclear bombers in Cuba?
July 23, 2008

The media has been abuzz today at the prospect of Russian nuclear bombers being stationed in Cuba if the US goes ahead with plans for missile defense bases in Eastern Europe.

The story has riled the US enough that a US general has been wheeled out to tell the world’s press that any Russian attempt to build another nuclear base in Cuba would cross US “red line”.

The story broke earlier this week, when Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted an un-named source from within the Russian military. He told the Russian daily:

“While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba.”

The quote hasn’t been independently confirmed, but the Russian Defense Ministry added fuel to the fire when they refused to comment on the story.

The prospect of Russian nuclear forces being stationed in Cuba - which is, after all, only 90 miles from the US coast - would bring back some rather unpleasant memories for the US of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, where the Soviet Union under Nikita Kruschev launched an audacious and foolhardy bid to station nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island.

Russia to help Cuba modernize weaponry, train military

September 18, 2009

HAVANA, September 18 (RIA Novosti) - Modernization of the Soviet-made military equipment and training of Cuban military personnel will be the focus of Russian-Cuban military cooperation in the near future, the chief of the Russian General Staff said on Friday. Gen. Nikolai Makarov arrived on a working visit to Cuba on Monday, met with Cuban President Raul Castro and the country's military leadership, and visited a number of military installations.

"During the Soviet era we delivered a large number of military equipment to Cuba, and after all these years most of this weaponry has become obsolete and needs repairs," Makarov said.

"We inspected the condition of this equipment, and outlined the measures to be taken to maintain the defense capability of this country...I think a lot of work needs to be done in this respect, and I hope we will be able to accomplish this task," the general said.

Makarov said the Cuban request for assistance with training of military personnel will also be fully satisfied.

Although the Cuban leadership has repeatedly said it has no intention of resuming military cooperation with Russia after the surprise closure of the Russian electronic listening post in Lourdes in 2001, bilateral military ties seem to have been improving following the visit of Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin to Cuba in July last year.

A group of Russian warships, led by the Admiral Chabanenko destroyer visited Cuba in December last year during a Caribbean tour.

Venezuela Set to Develop Nuclear Power With Russia
September 29, 2008
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Russia will help Venezuela develop nuclear energy — a move likely to raise U.S. concerns over increasingly close cooperation between Caracas and Moscow.,2933,429441,00.html

Venezuela's Chavez welcomes Russian warships
Nov 25, 2008
LA GUAIRA, Venezuela – Russian warships arrived off Venezuela's coast Tuesday in a show of strength aimed at the United States as Moscow seeks to expand its influence in Latin America. The deployment is the first of its kind in the Caribbean since the Cold War and was timed to coincide with President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Caracas — the first ever by a Russian president.

More Yahoo search results for Russia and Venezuela connections:;_ylt=A0geu_X30pZJCJEAfCtXNyoA?p=Russia+Venezuela+bombers+tanks+arms&y=Search&fr=404_news

From National Public Radio (NPR):
August 29, 2006
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been visiting countries such as China, Iran and Russia as part of an effort to build a 'strategic alliance' of interests not beholden to the United States. He considers the United States his arch enemy.":

124 posted on 04/10/2010 11:01:35 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

Russia and China have been holding joint war games every other year since 2005. The latest apparently took place on July 22-27 of last year.

"Russia and China will hold their joint military exercise on July 22-27 on the territories of the two countries. About 3,000 military men, 300 units of military hardware, over 40 planes and helicopters will take part in Peace Mission-2009 drills. About 1,500 servicemen, T-80 tanks, BMP-1 and BTR-70 armored vehicles, 22 aircraft, including two Il-76 cargo planes, five Su-24, five Su-25, five Su-27 fighters and five Mi-8 helicopters will represent Russia in the drills."

Russia, China hold Peace Mission 2009 joint exercise

The exercise involves about 3,000 Russian and Chinese servicemen, nearly 300 units of army military equipment and over 40 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Photo: BMP-86A infantry fighting vehicles of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China.

[2009] Russia, China plan new joint military exercises

By MARTIN SIEFF, UPI Senior News Analyst
Published: March 26, 2009

WASHINGTON, March 26 (UPI) -- The continuing tensions over Russia's refusal to sell its state-of-the-art land warfare advanced weapons systems to China hasn't interrupted the rhythm of major joint military exercises between the two major land powers on the Eurasian landmass. The latest in the regular, biennial series of exercises between the two nations has been confirmed for this summer.

The next in the now well-established series of exercises called Peace Mission 2009 will be carried out in northeastern China, the Russian Defense Ministry announced March 18, according to a report carried by the RIA Novosti news agency.

The first bilateral Peace Mission maneuvers -- described at the time as counter-terrorism exercises -- were held in Russia and the eastern Chinese province of Shandong in August 2005. As we reported at that time, they were a lot bigger than mere counter-terrorism exercises. Warships, squadrons of combat aircraft and more than 10,000 troops were involved carrying out landings against hypothetically hostile shores. The maneuvers also involved large-scale paratroops drops. The scale and nature of those exercises suggested a trial run for a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan with Russian support. ..."

Russia, China flex muscles in joint war games
August 17, 2007

CHEBARKUL, Russia (Reuters) - Russia and China staged their biggest joint exercises on Friday but denied this show of military prowess could lead to the formation of a counterweight to NATO.

"Today's exercises are another step towards strengthening the relations between our countries, a step towards strengthening international peace and security, and first and foremost, the security of our peoples," Putin said.

Fighter jets swooped overhead, commandos jumped from helicopters on to rooftops and the boom of artillery shells shook the firing range in Russia's Ural mountains as two of the largest armies in the world were put through their paces.

The exercises take place against a backdrop of mounting rivalry between the West, and Russia and China for influence over Central Asia, a strategic region that has huge oil, gas and mineral resources.

Russia's growing assertiveness is also causing jitters in the West. Putin announced at the firing range that Russia was resuming Soviet-era sorties by its strategic bomber aircraft near NATO airspace.

War Games: Russia, China Grow Alliance
September 23, 2005

In foreign policy it’s critical to “know thine enemy.” So American policymakers should be aware that Russia and China are inching closer to identifying a common enemy — the United States.

The two would-be superpowers held unprecedented joint military exercises Aug. 18-25. Soothingly named “Peace Mission 2005,” the drills took place on the Shandong peninsula on the Yellow Sea, and included nearly 10,000 troops. Russian long-range bombers, the army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units from both countries were also involved.

Moscow and Beijing claim the maneuvers were aimed at combating terrorism, extremism and separatism (the last a veiled reference to Taiwan), but it’s clear they were an attempt to counter-balance American military might.

Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."

From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":

125 posted on 04/10/2010 11:02:29 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

Yes, communism is as dead as a doornail.

Put down the crack pipe.

126 posted on 04/10/2010 11:05:53 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Yes, communism is as dead as a doornail. Put down the crack pipe.

If you didn't notice, we are in the midst of a communist takeover ourselves. Pull your head out of your azz.

127 posted on 04/10/2010 11:14:15 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

Resurgent Communism in Latin America

Written by Alex Newman, March 16, 2010

Many Cuban refugees risked everything to escape the murderous regime of Fidel Castro. Oftentimes they made treacherous voyages aboard rickety rafts, hoping only to reach the free shores of Florida with their lives. Many died along the way. But communist rule was vicious and unforgiving.

So when the Berlin Wall came down and the Iron Curtain was raised, people around the world breathed a sigh of relief. It was generally accepted that it would only be a matter of time before communism fell everywhere, including Latin America. But instead, something else happened south of the border — it morphed and continued its march through the region with unprecedented ease.

Now, there is a new wave of people fleeing Latin American tyranny and arriving in Miami. Jorge Bastidas, 57, was a successful small business owner on the touristy Venezuelan island of Margarita when avowed socialist Hugo Chavez seized the reins of power in 1998. A lot of Venezuelans liked Chavez in the beginning, Bastidas said, “but once in power, he took off the mask and revealed a monster.” The effects of his policies soon hit home. 

“When he took over, the economy of our island was devastated,” Bastidas told The New American. “It went down and down and down until whole shopping malls, hotels, restaurants — all kinds of businesses really — were forced to shut down. And we got caught up in this too — it was horrible.”

In addition to the economy crumbling, crime and insecurity exploded, as persecution of the political opposition began. “I was a member of an organization that was opposed to Chavez,” explained Bastidas, also a father of two children. “And so, it happened: Any person who did not support him became his enemy. We were persecuted to the point where it became intolerable, and so when the opportunity arose, we had to leave.”

Bastidas has not returned home since that fateful day, but if Chavez is ever ousted, he would like to. Unfortunately, though, he isn’t hopeful. “That man will never — never — leave power through votes, of this I’m certain. He cheats!”

Not everybody was as lucky. Many middle-class business owners have had their businesses and property seized and have nowhere to run. And as Chavez grows increasingly authoritarian — backed up by friendly neighboring regimes, a seemingly endless supply of “petrodollars,” and shiploads of sophisticated Russian weaponry — Venezuela has unquestionably descended into full-blown totalitarianism.

The socialist leader routinely threatens to jail political opponents, even arresting a sitting Governor for allegedly conspiring against him. The former Defense Minister was also imprisoned after publicly opposing Chavez’ unconstitutional power grab to remain in office indefinitely.

The regime shut down six television stations just this year for failing to broadcast all of Chavez’ speeches. It has closed dozens of radio stations that were not sufficiently supportive. Now, Chavez wants to jail broadcasters who don’t abide by his “regulations.”

Leftists Advance: Nation by Nation
The Venezuelan people are not the only ones suffering under this resurgence of fanatical left-wing leaders.

The BBC reported in 2005 that 75 percent of South Americans were governed by leftist rulers, all of whom had risen to power in the preceding six years. And the trend has only accelerated since then, with some analysts using the term “Pink Tide” to describe the phenomenon that has enveloped Latin America.

Bolivia: With strong backing from Chavez, former coca farmer Evo Morales of the Movement for Socialism assumed power in 2006. His party now controls about two-thirds of both Parliamentary houses and has already “redistributed” over 60,000 acres of land. Foreign capital has nearly vanished. But incredibly, the government promises to intensify its efforts.

Ecuador: Radical leftist Rafael Correa, another proponent of Chavez’ “21st Century Socialism,” became President in 2007. “Socialism will continue,” he boldly announced after being elected, ending his victory speech with communist mass-murderer Ernesto Che Guevara’s famous words “Hasta la victoria siempre” (until victory always/forever). 

Brazil: Latin America’s largest nation has been under the thumb of a charismatic radical left-wing President since 2003 — though he does a better job of concealing his true intentions than other rulers in the region. A former labor leader who helped found the Workers’ Party, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has poured vast sums into wealth redistribution and various “anti-poverty” schemes. Though widely seen and presented as a “moderate,” he is far from it. In conjunction with communist despot Fidel Castro, “Lula,” as he is affectionately known, spawned a powerful socialist cabal that united leftist terrorists, social movements, and political parties in an astoundingly successful effort to conquer Latin America for the Left.

Nicaragua: Revolutionary Marxist and Sandinista Daniel Ortega re-assumed leadership in 2007, despite a long record of violent rule and accusations by his stepdaughter of systematic sexual abuse (he was never prosecuted owing to governmental immunity and the statute of limitations). In a bid to extend his power, Ortega’s first act in 2010 unconstitutionally extended the terms of corrupt but supportive judicial officials under the guise of “stability.”

Other nations that have come under control of leftist leaders in the last dec-ade include Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean nations, and more. Many of the rulers came to power in questionable elections, with accusations of fraud running rampant. And in the few nations that have not already fallen to extremist left-wing governments, leftist forces often represent the main opposition parties. Examples of this include Peru, Colombia, and Costa Rica.   

Supranational Integration
In addition to the proliferation of left-wing regimes, a variety of new supranational governments are emerging that threaten to centralize the left-wing totalitarianism and impose it on the few remaining holdouts.

One of the most dangerous transnational leftist integration schemes is the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA), which includes Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, and Saint Vincent. The regional union is held together by disdain for the United States, capitalism, and liberty in general. It has already begun using a new transnational currency known as the SUCRE in commercial exchanges through the ALBA bank, and further “integration” is planned.

A broader regional government known as the Union of South American Nations includes every nation on the continent (except French Guiana, which is part of France). The “Bank of the South,” or BancoSur, is headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela, while the “South American Parliament” will likely be located in Bolivia. Currently led by socialist Ecuadorian President Correa, the scheme includes a military alliance called the South American Defense Council, a developing “common market,” and even plans to introduce a common currency. The integration process, modeled on the European Union, is expected to be completed in less than a decade.

Driving Force
Socialism’s present stature in the southern latitudes shouldn’t have been altogether unexpected, as the poor and middle classes in those countries revolted against false promises made by power-hungry “rightist” politicians and governments that sold the people on a type of corrupt capitalism peddled as free-market capitalism. While purporting to support freedom and free markets, these leaders often engage in a type of crony capitalism instead of true liberalization-oriented reforms.

In nation after nation that was supposedly turning toward capitalism, the state provided absurd benefits to politically connected businesses or elites at the expense of the people (like selling state-owned enterprises or assets at fire-sale prices to the ruling elite, who then improperly reap massive profits and continue to run inefficient monopolies).

With promises of prosperity, leftist regimes have been able to dupe the peoples into voluntarily surrendering their freedom, property, and any legitimate chance at future prosperity.

But this phenomenon alone could not possibly account for the firm grip that statists now hold over the reins of power in Latin America. Other factors figure in.

According to acclaimed Brazilian writer and philosopher Professor Olavo de Carvalho, over a dozen current governments in Latin America are connected through a shadowy, powerful, and little-known organization called the Foro de São Paulo (São Paulo Forum — FSP). The name refers to the Brazilian city where it was founded in 1990 by Castro, the Sandinistas, and Lula (the supposedly “moderate” president of Brazil). It is essentially a network comprised of over 100 leftist political parties, various social movements, and several guerrilla terrorist organizations such as the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) and the Chilean Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR), among others. In recent years, bad publicity has forced the FSP to discourage leftist terrorist groups from sending official representatives to meetings. But according to experts and various reports obtained by The New American, this is merely a public-relations gimmick.

President Lula, who led the FSP for many years, defended the group and its collaboration with the FARC and other terrorist groups, saying that “18 years ago, in almost every South American country, there were political currents which argued that the only possible way to achieve power was violent struggle,” the AFP reported in a 2008 article. “In 1990, we created the São Paulo Forum, where we invited the entire Latin American Left to participate.”

Carvalho told The New American that the FSP “is the strategic command of the communist and pro-communist movement in the continent.” According to the group’s founding declaration, the mission is to, among other objectives, “renew leftist and socialist thought” and “to reaffirm its emancipating character.” Eventually its aims grew to include Latin American “integration” as well. And this is exactly the trend that has taken hold in the region.

Attempts to contact a spokesman for the FSP were unsuccessful. But despite the claims of its defenders, critics argue that the FSP is much more sinister than simply a “democratic” leftist vehicle.

But how did this secretive group become so powerful? “The Forum would never have accumulated so much power if its activities had been denounced from the outset, but during 16 years, big media and the establishment, in Latin America and in the U.S., refused to touch upon the subject, handing to the strategists of the communist revolution the protection of silence,” said Carvalho, possibly the most important individual involved in exposing the FSP.

Another factor is the support of powerful converging interests that include everything from governments and monopolistic businesses to drug traffickers and criminal organizations. “Legal parties cover up the activities of criminal groups, and these provide undercover financial resources to legal parties,” explained Carvalho.

Another crucial factor in the Latin American leftist resurgence is the assistance of former Soviet officials and other international connections, according to Toby Westerman, editor of International News Analysis and author of Lies, Terror and the Rise of the Neo-Communist Empire — Origins and Direction.

Westerman told The New American that a worldwide alliance including Communist China, Islamic fundamentalism, Iran, leftist Latin American rulers and guerrillas, and other forces were all collaborating in a war against the United States, united by their “anti-human, anti-God” ideology. “[The Russians] are running the same game, just slightly different — it’s more of a franchise operation than a central corporate operation, if you will. But if you take Russia out of it, the whole thing collapses.”

Indeed, the Russians have been supplying advanced weaponry to regimes like Chavez’. Russian National Security Council Chief Nikolai Patrushev actually attended the most recent ALBA summit last year. And China and Iran have both jumped on the bandwagon as well, cooperating with a variety of unsavory Latin American governments in myriad sectors and projects.

“We are creating a new world, a balanced world. A new world order, a multipolar world,” Chavez told reporters during a visit to Communist China, one of many. His “new world order” includes China, Iran, Japan, and a significantly weakened United States, he explained.

The Latin American leftists and the FSP have also received support from more “mainstream” Western European groups as well. The “European Left” (EL), a group that describes itself as an alliance of “left socialist, communist, and red-green parties in the European Union,” met in 2009 with representatives of the FSP and entered into a number of agreements for mutual assistance. To that end, the groups also developed “a linking mechanism, efficient and stable, between the [FSP] Secretariat, its regional secretaries, and the Executive Board of the EL,” according to a joint statement released by the EL.

So aside from any genuine discontent with false leaders on the so-called Right and the false image they have attached to free markets, there is a complex, interlocking network working in unison to advance what is essentially a new socialist revolution in Latin America. Hiding in the shadows, this network has had remarkable success in achieving its goals. And though the role of the U.S. government is hotly debated, U.S. policies are certainly not helping matters.  

U.S. Involvement
Nearly every expert interviewed by The New American for this story had a different take on how the United States factors into the leftist resurgence. One view is that the U.S. government is secretly waging war against the leftist advances — at least the “21st Century Socialism” faction. “Bolivia and Ecuador, and more generally the region’s burgeoning social movements and Left political forces, are as much targets of this counteroffensive as Venezuela,” said William Robinson of the Latin American and Iberian Studies Program at the University of California. He claims the U.S. government is using a sophisticated combination of “military threats and hostilities with psychological operations, disinformation campaigns, black propaganda, economic sabotage, diplomatic pressures and the mobilization of political opposition forces inside the country” with the aim of provoking Chavez and other regimes into a “crackdown that transforms the democratic socialist process into an authoritarian one.” 

But is the “Yankee empire” really waging a covert battle against the forces of communism and socialism in Latin America? Probably not, according to most analysts. One expert dismissed the notion as “nonsense.” If anything, the U.S. government has remained largely indifferent, he said. Others argue that the United States has, in fact, aided the revolution.

While the U.S. government has traditionally been perceived as opposed to leftist regimes in Latin America, the Obama administration took a different stance in Honduras, openly siding with Chavez, Castro, and the FARC in demanding the return to power of Honduras’ criminal leftist President Manuel Zelaya after he was ousted for flagrant constitutional violations.

There has also been indirect U.S. involvement in the region, and this may prove more important than overt actions such as intervening on Zelaya’s behalf. The United States is likely one of the largest financiers of the leftist movements in Latin America, whether intentionally or not. Half of Venezuela’s oil is sold to the United States, for example, while Chavez uses his petrodollars to help finance the socialist revolution throughout the region.

And while the U.S. government stifles and blocks domestic oil exploration (forcing consumers to purchase it from leftist Latin American regimes or anti-American Middle Eastern governments), it is simultaneously helping finance Brazil’s government-owned oil firm Petrobras’ offshore exploration to the tune of billions of U.S. dollars. In addition, $1.8 billion in U.S. foreign aid flowed to regimes in Latin America and the Carribean just in 2005, including more than $50 million to Brazil.

Of course, no discussion of U.S. involvement in the region would be complete without mentioning the role of Plan Colombia and the Merida Initiative. Essentially, the United States unconstitutionally provides billions of dollars, weapons, training, and intelligence to partner nations in Latin America — Mexico and Colombia in particular — in a supposed effort to combat the drug trade. But the effect of this “war” has turned out to be a boon for certain well-connected, leftist narco-terrorist groups, especially the FARC, which had many of its competitors eliminated courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Analysts interviewed by The New American for this story had varying opinions about the anti-drug “aid,” with some arguing that it is indispensable and others claiming it is counterproductive. But as the War on Drugs intensifies, supply inevitably diminishes and risk increases, thereby raising prices and making the trade more lucrative and by extension providing more funding for leftist Latin American guerrillas and terrorists to purchase weapons and spread their ideology. It also gives leftist leaders a rallying cry to unite their populations against foreign intervention and a scapegoat on which to pin the results of their disastrous policies.

The statist swing in Latin American governments has not delivered on promises of decreasing poverty or improving life for the common people. In fact, it has done the opposite.

Venezuela, despite its oil revenues, has been forced to start rationing water and electricity, even though the country has bountiful fresh water supplies and some of the largest known oil reserves in the world. And despite government efforts to boost domestic food production, the nation has been forced to import ever increasing amounts just to sustain itself. Chavez was also forced to devalue the Venezuelan currency in January. And if the nation continues on its current path, the devastation will only intensify.

Ecuador, Bolivia, and other leftist regimes find themselves in a similar situation. And Cuba, which has suffered under decades of communist authoritarianism, is the most extreme testament of the horrors wrought by central planning: It is one of the poorest nations on Earth (along with other communist states like North Korea).

“All of these countries, especially Venezuela and Ecuador, are running their economies into the ground,” University of Miami’s Department of International Studies Chair Bruce Bagley told The New American, referring primarily to ALBA members. “The state-run economies of Latin America in the past have proven disastrous and they’re going to prove disastrous now.… So, I do see that socialism of the 21st century is on its last legs.” But the expansive role of the state in Latin American economies, according to Bagley, will continue for a long time to come.

But there may still be hope. After electing hard-core socialist president Michelle Bachelet in 2006, Chilean voters in January rejected the radical Left and instead opted for the more moderate Sebastián Piñera, who represents what is considered a “center-right” party. In Panama, voters last year threw out committed leftist Martín Torrijos and replaced him with the supposedly more freedom-friendly Ricardo Martinelli.

A top Latin American executive with a Fortune 50 multinational firm spoke with The New American on condition of anonymity and explained that he remained optimistic about the future business climate in Latin America, citing Colombia as one example of a nation that has made progress and continues to move in a positive direction. “Obviously, businesses are looking to invest in places with stable and reliable economies,” he said, adding that this could potentially improve the political environment of the region.

There is also a large coalition of groups opposed to the FSP and the leftward march of the region’s governments. The Union de Organizaciones Democraticas de America (UNOAmerica) is a Latin American umbrella group with around 200 member organizations. It exists to promote freedom and counter the FSP and its authoritarian allies in the region. And its president, Alejandro Peña Esclusa, remains optimistic about the future of freedom as well.

“[The FSP] has built within it the seeds of its own destruction,” Esclusa told The New American from the jungles of Colombia. “Once they are in power, they are not able to create wealth, so eventually, the movement will be defeated.… But even though it is destined to fail, in the meantime, it can destroy a lot.”

But while some analysts think the resurgent Left will inevitably fail, others are not so optimistic. Brazilian Professor Carvalho thinks more drastic measures are required. “The Forum can only be stopped if the legal political parties in its membership are taken to court for the criminal activities covered up and protected by the organization,” he explained.

And the time for that might well be running out: “When we present these facts to self-proclaimed right-wing leaders, to business leaders and even to high-ranking army officers, they chicken out and pretend they didn’t see anything,” Carvalho told The New American. “Meanwhile, communist militants keep securing positions in the judiciary, so that as time goes by any lawsuit brought against this alliance of leftists and criminals becomes ever more unlikely to succeed.”

128 posted on 04/10/2010 11:20:29 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk; neverdem; potlatch; devolve; ntnychik


129 posted on 04/10/2010 12:40:17 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Communism will never be dead as long as there are universities.

130 posted on 04/10/2010 1:22:41 PM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
From the end of the Cold War through to the present day, the globalists would merge capitalism (blue) with communism (red) to produce fascism (purple); the ideology of the one world order.

Honest to God, had a chill go down my spine when I read that. . The Purple (SEIU) People Eaters gorging themselves with useless eaters. Coming to your block soon! Soylent Purple anyone?

131 posted on 04/10/2010 3:19:44 PM PDT by Art in Idaho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“These are all building blocks of marxism, but people who want them are not marxists, let alone agents of a foreign power. They simply want a free lunch, a naturally occuring human condition.”

Oh, but they are indeed Marxists, whether they are aware of what their ideology is called, or not—and they’re equally as dangerous.

“They simply want a free lunch...”

This has led to the deaths of millions upon millions of human beings. It is not an innocuous idea.

You will pay for their “lunch” with your life if they are allowed to rule and slowly destroy us.

Sure, it starts with “A free lunch would be great!” and it ends with piles of corpses.

And no, they can’t control it; they can’t maintain an “acceptable” amount of collectivism. It is an aggressive cancer.

What, you think they will stop with “ObamaCare”? Not a chance. Mark my words, next week, next month, next year, will all bring a NEW EMERGENCY, a NEW PROBLEM that MUST BE SOLVED.

And this will repeat until the bodies start dropping, guaranteed.

We’re on the road to destruction.

132 posted on 04/10/2010 3:23:46 PM PDT by Boucheau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90

thanks for the ping... new and interesting info. on the thread since I last read it. :)

133 posted on 04/10/2010 5:01:32 PM PDT by LibertyRocks ( ~ Anti-Obama Gear:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

That’s a good one, Phil!

134 posted on 04/10/2010 5:02:37 PM PDT by LibertyRocks ( ~ Anti-Obama Gear:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

Nope. A lost liberal Chicago pol way out of his depth is headed for a lost by election, and that is all.
135 posted on 04/10/2010 5:31:18 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Golitsyn's argument was that beginning in about 1960, the Soviet Union embarked on a strategy of massive long-range strategic deception which would span several decades and result in the destruction of Western capitalism and the erection of a communist world government."

Tremendous article, neverdem! Thanks for posting.

This is why the Russians are masters of the complex game of chess. Unfortunately, most of us suck at simple checkers.

136 posted on 04/10/2010 5:52:26 PM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boucheau


My point was, it is not a plot. It is, nevertheless, tragic.

137 posted on 04/10/2010 9:53:02 PM PDT by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

For a minute I thought I saw his soul, but it was a lump of coal after all.

138 posted on 04/11/2010 12:32:49 AM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“My point was, it is not a plot.”

I am a capitalist and I have a “plot” to further capitalism.

Of course it’s a plot.

Catholicism is a plot.

The hard left is one big plot—it’s an artform with them.

Our government was built to prevent you and I from becoming the victims of someone’s plot.

As long as people blind themselves to what the left is really up to they will continue to grow their power in this country.

If you examine the networks of power, you’ll soon realize that this is a International “plot” that has been in the works for a very long time.

Mark my words, we are riding-out the last days of freedom in the US.

No one wants to believe it’s happening. We’re toast.

Cue: “You’re paranoid!”

I know, I’ve been “paranoid” for over twenty years. I’ve been 100% accurate thus far, but “paranoid” nonetheless.

But, I look at all the guns Americans bought last year and can’t help but think that, at least at some level, humans in this country sense that something is very wrong.

They should trust their instinct. This instinct, by the way, is the very instinct that the hard left is working feverishly to confound.

This is our survival instinct; our willingness and desire to defend ourselves.

The mass denial in Americans these days, well, I don’t believe it is all organic. I believe it is a result of decades worth of subversion (via PC, school system, media, celebrities, using guilt/ethics against us, etc.).

If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize for scaring a few people.

If I’m right, I’ll offer my sincerest condolences.

139 posted on 04/11/2010 1:51:13 AM PDT by Boucheau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

if any of these countries - The soviets, the chicoms etc - had given up communism they would have allowed their citzens to arm themselves!! The second amendment is ultimately the main deterent, with the exception of a military that may question a tyrant, to the commies trying for total take over of the US

140 posted on 04/11/2010 2:13:37 AM PDT by timetostand (Ya say ya wanna revolution -- OK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem


141 posted on 04/11/2010 2:38:50 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The short answer is yes. Communism and socialism is the crappy idea that refuses to die. Not because it doesn’t work, but because most humans refuse to use logic and think in terms of envy and schadenfreude and use communism to articulate it.

142 posted on 04/11/2010 6:47:16 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“There is no evidence of “pretending to collapse” in the late 20th century USSR. There is evidence of an actual collapse. There is also evidence of attempt at reform (glasnost and perestroyka) that got out of Kremlin’s control, but that is not the same as pretending.”
Like I said- perhaps they screwed up and actually collapsed. I think it not beyond possibility. The best laid plans of mice and men, and all that.

“People who lead us to serfdom are not agents of Komintern. They are homegrown idiots, community organizers with lust for power, and apparatchiks who enable them, who might occasionally borrow an idea or two from Lenin and Trotzky.”
The ones that exist now, perhaps. I find it not impossible that the ones who they got their ideas from had an altogether more insidious agenda. For example, we know FDR’s administration had actual communists in it (Alger Hiss, anybody) and Yalta was a full-on sellout. We know that Marxism is and has been pretty prevalent in academia for decades- where it was placed to influence our elite classes to the point where it would become their ideology. My theory is that Stalin’s dissolution of the Comintern was a smokescreen, and that it simply went underground to infiltrate the West. Then the original infiltrators died off, went rogue, or otherwise began to deviate from the plan, but not entirely. Like robots, they continued the course they set out on, and when the Soviet Union collapsed, they simply continued onward. The useful idiots they created are still with us, indeed, they are the dominant orthodoxy in academia and the media now.

“For example, many, possibly a majority, of Americans want socialized medicine, banking and education, a solid majority wants the pension system run by the state, nearly all want separation of church and state. These are all building blocks of marxism, but people who want them are not marxists, let alone agents of a foreign power. They simply want a free lunch, a naturally occuring human condition.”
Marx’s ideology is no less dangerous or evil regardless of what fools are being manipulated with it. I also see no reason to separate the stooges from the manipulators. This is all assuming I am right of course. I would greatly be pleased to be wrong, but as the years pass I think that less likely.

143 posted on 04/11/2010 9:01:42 AM PDT by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Boucheau
The mass denial in Americans these days, well, I don’t believe it is all organic

In a healthy society institutions exist that would abate the worst instincts of the mob. The Church, the institutions of learning, the courts, tradition -- political or otherwise, -- would work on nurturing the sense of justice and the sense that there is no free lunch. No such thing as free education or free health care or free defense system exists. The society is as prosperous as it is virtuous. A hundred years ago everyone in America knew that, -- it was axiomatic. The country did very well.

We now have instead institutions of liberal subversion: economic miseducation, rabid secularism, militaristic theory of national grandeur, cult of sexual promiscuity working overtime to cater to the worst instincts that exist in the fallen man.

If national salvation is to be found in anything, it will be found in this nation abandoning the left wing institutions of power. The provided the model of abandoning the institutions of mass media. Something similar needs to happen on the mass scale with regards of the educational and political system. Unless the Tea Party movement manages by some miracle to recapture and to rebuild the American political system in the coming two election cycles, the future of American conservatism is underground.

144 posted on 04/11/2010 4:00:59 PM PDT by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

Yes, with that I agree. Indeed, there is a leftwing culture that now has a life of its own. It exists because it caters to an instinct, just like prostitution of thievery exist because they cater to certain instincts. The people in the leftwing institutions do not need to plot or get the morning fax from the Komintern: it is organic to them.

What I disagree is the scenario suggested by Golitsyn, that the KGB had a secret meeting and decided, “let’s pretend we collapse and through that take over the world”. Instead there were forces both inside and outside of the KGB that produced the collapse.

How do I know? Well, I don’t have a fly on the wall somewhere but I grew up in the collapsing Soviet Union and I observe it genuinely collapse. It collapsed ideologically, but it also collapsed on some elemental level: electricity stopped, water ceased to be drinkable, no work was done anywhere unless stimulated by the black market, 90% of the male population was fall-down drunk by 5 pm. You cannot fake that.

And we know why: because socialism cannot work. It is an economic fact that it should fail. So it failed. It is not complicated.

There is another trasformation that occurred in the 70s and 80s: the ideological state of the USSR became instead an imperial state. The roots of it are in the victory in the Second World War: an empire fell into Stalin’s lap thanks to FDR’s and Churchill’s graces. Gradually, the ideological marxist edge was gone. The marxist ideology was supplanted by military imperialism. Now THAT part is alive and well under Putin. It is probably stronger now than in the 70’s because Russia has lost so much of its geopolitical power, so people do genuinely believe that they are under a military threat. This Russian imperialistic nationalism is not going anywhere. There was an opportunity to cure it with a form of international trial for crimes of the Soviet System, similar to the Nuremberg trials, but that opportunity was missed.

145 posted on 04/11/2010 4:21:16 PM PDT by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Russians and the other communists did not “declare” communism to be dead; the American press and dumb-ass politicians in the west declared that communism was dead. Even democrats in this country did not declare it dead.

146 posted on 04/11/2010 4:35:26 PM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“A hundred years ago everyone in America knew that, — it was axiomatic. The country did very well.”

Did it ever!

Well said.

Only one issue with what you stated. It’s communist subversion, not liberal subversion.

Liberalism/socialism is only the tool that will NECESSARILY lead to communism—like night follows day.

The loud voices today (liberals) will be silenced tomorrow.

Once those on the “right” have been marginalized, the war begins between the left and the hard left, and the hard left will win.

The communists are ingenious in their subversion. As they have been saying for a very long time, they will use “liberalism” to slowly weaken the US and eventually dominate.

If we don’t stop liberalism/socialism, we cannot stop the communists.

They don’t, and won’t, call it communism, but a pile of sh*t is still a pile of sh*t by any other name.

147 posted on 04/11/2010 5:17:27 PM PDT by Boucheau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Boucheau

Liberalism is broader. People sometime point out that “communism” under its strict definition was not even practiced in the Soviet Union. It was always an ideal society that the Soviet Union was supposedly “building”. Under communism, money would disappear, people would be all to the one moral altrustic people who work for the common good and then take what they want from the store.

Most leftists today laugh at the idea, as of course everyone should, so if one calls them “communist” it is easy for them to shrug off the label.

Similarly some posters on this thread called Putin “communist” when they really meant “militarist” or “autocratic” or “imperialist”.

148 posted on 04/11/2010 5:32:53 PM PDT by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“People sometime point out that ‘communism’ under its strict definition was not even practiced in the Soviet Union.”

Of course they say that, FRiend! That is because communism CANNOT BE ACHIEVED—it kills everyone long before it ever reaches its goals.

They don’t have a leg to stand on.

That’s my point in all of this. To me, they are trying to KILL US!

Consciously...on purpose? No, but the universe doesn’t care about their good intentions. If you rob a man of his ability to fend for himself AND to defend himself from his would-be-captors/owners, then you have killed him.

At that point, it’s only a matter of time until mass graves are needed.

“Most leftists today laugh at the idea, as of course everyone should, so if one calls them ‘communist’ it is easy for them to shrug off the label.”

WHY is it “easy” today? It wasn’t easy fifty years ago. What has changed?

You are letting them muddy the waters—the waters being your mind.

YOU/WE must define the terms, not them. They will kill you with words if you let them.

To a communist: your mind is the prize.

This is the subversion, FRiend. They are a very real threat in this department.

You can poo-poo me ‘til the cows come home, but I know how they work.

My dad used to say that: “The biggest obstacle to learning something new is what you already know.”

The biggest threat to Americans right now is that so many are arrogant, and irrationally confident in the infallibility of this country.

The ideas that form our laws are the ONLY thing that keep us free. Guess what they are attacking DIRECTLY?

“it [the constitution] does not say what the government can do on your behalf.” This is all you need to know about Obama. When I first heard him say those words I literally got chills and goose bumps. My heart sank. I knew we were in big, big trouble.

“...on your behalf.” That’s ANYTHING the he/they decide is good for you. Hello?! The “common good”, anyone? A blank check on your existence, anyone?

Those words alone merited a bloody revolution to prevent his rise to power—he’s anti-American, and in broad daylight.

You are not superior in any way to other human beings on this planet and you will fall to communism just the same. What, was everyone in Germany, or Russia stupid? Genetically inferior?

How could so many millions fall prey to communism?

It is the Siren call of Siren calls—and it stands like a giant before us ready to stomp us out of existence.

Previous generations feared and loathed communism for good reason. They watched from a distance as the communists ran over nations and peoples overtly.

Right now, they are in the White House. Only now, they must operate covertly.

Call me extreme/alarmist, or whatever, but don’t you think we should err on the side of great caution when it comes to our freedom?

Shouldn’t we look upon those who lead us with suspicion when they have done SO MANY THINGS that communists would do?

The ideology is precisely the same—all you’re missing are the red flags, the tanks, and death camps. They can’t do those things here yet.

But they can convince you that they don’t exist, and slowly turn you against yourself, and do it all “...on your behalf.”

149 posted on 04/11/2010 6:15:39 PM PDT by Boucheau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Nope. Communism is dead. The totalitarian impulse is still very much alive, but the only real going concerns, from the PRC to the Obama administration are fascist (leaving aside the bizarre morphing of “people’s democracy” into a form of hereditary monarchy in North Korea and Cuba.)

Experience has drilled the critiques of central planning of Hayek and vonMises even into the minds and hearts of would-be central planners who have never read even a precis of the work of any Austrian school economist.

Putin and Pravda warn America of the dangers of socialism and go unheeded—even though as now constituted Russia is fascist, though less obnoxiously so than China or Obama’s vision for the U.S. The Chinese fascists (who still call themselves “Communists” but aren’t really) cling to state atheism, but in Russia it’s been jettisoned for a revival of the old Byzantine symphony of powers between Church and state (which is its present form is more robust than at any time since Peter “the Great” subordinated the Russian Church to the state).

Communism has been consigned to the dustbin of history—both shown to be unworkable by trenchant critique, and defeated in practical terms. The problem is, fascism, is ultimately more dangerous: while an affront to human dignity and freedom, and sub-optimal in terms of its provision for human material needs (capitalism being better), unlike Communism, it is workable long-term (as Franco’s Spain and Peronist Argentina showed—though the latter gave a really good case for its sub-optimality).

150 posted on 04/11/2010 7:36:41 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson