American Betrayal: A Christmas Story

Diana West ^ | December 19, 2015 | Diana West

[No One Special]

American Betrayal: A Christmas story?

Not really. However, it is the striking case that most of the main action of the book takes place within a span of years notably bookended (see below) by two Christmases: Christmas, 1919, when Lenin ordered the Chekists, his pre-KGB secret police, to shoot anyone failing to show up for work in observance of St. Nicholas' Day, and Christmas 1991, the day the USSR officially dissolved.

The book attempts to unmask some mass of the colossal deception and fakery that have taken shape in between those two Christmas seasons as consensus-history, the nearly completely false narrative from which we take many twisted lessons that thwart us to this day.

No, it is not a Christmas story. But it is a tale of good and evil, truth and lies, and why light is losing to darkness, usually without seeing any of it coming.

From American Betrayal, Chapter 2:

For equilibrium's sake, the solid ground of conventional wisdom, circa 1989, holds great attraction. That was the year the captive nations of the USSR's "Eastern Bloc" began to reconstitute themselves as free-standing states for the first time since the Soviets forced what Winston Churchill famously named the "Iron Curtain" over half of Europe at the end of World War II. Climactically, 1989 was also the year that the Berlin Wall, erected twenty-eight years earlier, with its checkpoints, mines, trip wires, and bunkers, crumbled in a stupendous preview of the pending implosion of the evil empire itself.

Remarkable how the phrase "evil empire," particularly when framed in the quotation marks of irony, still evokes the indelible image of cartoonish "cowboys" playing at "Star Wars." Under battering assault by an arsenal of psychological weapons that began with Soviet propaganda and ended with domestic peer pressure, the West was made more uncomfortable by the phrase "evil empire" than by the evil of the empire itself. It still is.

"All Chekists," Lenin instructed his secret police on December 25, 1919, "have to be on the alert to shoot anyone who doesn't turn up to work because of ‘Nikola' [St. Nicholas's Day]."2 Seventy-two years later, on another December 25, the USSR officially dissolved. It was 1991, and the United States could suddenly lay claim to a shotless final triumph over Lenin's police state.

It was a grand victory that seemed to be due at least partly to the ascendance of a more robust wing of the American Right in the preceding decade. Anti-Communist aspects of U.S. foreign policy had finally repulsed Soviet Communist expansionism, it seemed, thanks in decisive part to the fortunate happenstance of Ronald Reagan. The conventional chorus lists other factors--the deep rot of Communist "planned economies," the advent of the so-called reformer Gorbachev and his policies of perestroika and glasnost, Poland's Solidarity movement and the Pope John Paul II effect--but within this same context it seems fair to say Reagan was the singular catalyst, not to mention a lucky break, a political foundling who was only uneasily adopted by the Republican Establishment after he made it to the White House. This was something he accomplished without following (or leaving behind) a line of political bread crumbs. At the same time, however, these seemingly victorious policies ("peace through strength," support for anti-Soviet forces in the third world, "trust but verify," Strategic Defense Initiative) promulgated by Cold Warriors far from home proved wholly impotent stateside.

Here, since even before the earliest days of the twentieth century, the riddling, boring penetration of Marxian beliefs--through the influx of true believers from Europe and Russia, through the conversion to true belief of new Marxists at home, and through campaigns of Soviet disinformation and other "active measures"--advanced mainly unchecked. The ideological war abroad, or, more accurately, the anti-ideological war abroad--because, as Robert Conquest reminds us, the West, unlike the USSR, "did not have a universal and exclusively defined mind-set"--was lost on all fronts in the battlespace at home: in the academy, in the media, in the popular culture, in the arts, and in the zeitgeist up and down Main Street and even, or perhaps especially, along capitalism's main thoroughfare, Wall Street.3

It was as if we opposed an enemy Over There without noticing that great chunks of his ideology had taken root, flourished, and borne collectivist and thus anti-American fruit Over Here.

I'm not just referring to those most radical elements of the early Soviet agenda (the original "Bolshevik plot," as President Obama might have said) that became Western fixtures even as they were, ironically, reversed under Stalin in the 1930s when they proved to be destabilizing to the young regime. These would include the de-sacralization and legal diminishment of marriage (state boosterism of marriage became apparent in 1936 when wedding rings became available in state-run stores), quick 'n' easy divorce (curtailed in 1936, largely abolished in 1944), "freedom of abortion" (abolished in 1936), and the elevation of children's rights to the detriment of parental authority ("respect" for elders became a theme in state-controlled press by 1935).4

Such "antibourgeois" ideas, however, would become the basis of Western manners and mores. Sometimes specifically ascribed to the 1920s writings of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci or the later teachings of the so-called Frankfurt School, other times seen as spillover from the wellspring of early twentiethcentury "socialist" and "progressive" political and educational movements, in recent times repackaged as "Alinskyite," such ideas, rising from the same Marxian wellspring, have flooded, saturated, and finally warped those bastions of Western civilization that conservatives, by definition, feel compelled to defend--just as though those bastions of Western civilization were still bastions. Secure places. Enduring repositories. Eternally unchanged by all the meticulously, continuously documented breaching. In fact, the biggest problem today is with the bastions. They're not secure, they're not enduring, and they have been breached.

Broadly, these bastions include Christianity itself, the concept of "patriarchy" and family, and all safeguards of nationhood and traditional culture. My purpose is less to trace the weblike and overlapping origins of the ideas that have undermined these institutions than it is to recognize their common end game--a place, a world, where these same core Western institutions are no more.

Funny, but wasn't that the endgame of the defunct USSR, the raison d'e^tre of junk-heaped Marxism-Leninism? That's a serious question, something to ask while tripping over the strong bonds and common cause shared by America's enemies and their American friends. The sugarcoater of my enemy, the empathizer with my enemy, the enabler of my enemy, is my . . . what?

Whatever he is, he's still with us. Failing to see in Soviet collapse the failure and corruption of the overbearing state, the statist Left has in fact been buoyant, both in spirit and at the polls in these first post-Soviet decades. I don't mean to suggest that Communist Party members have been winning elections--at least not in the United States. Then again, they don't have to win to win: The collectivist agenda advances. (It was a positively crowing CPUSA leader Sam Webb who in May 2010 addressed his assembled masses in New York City to take stock of Communist Party gains--all policies or actions initiated by President Barack Obama.5) In fact, David Horowitz argues that "the one consequence of note" of the disappearance of the Soviet bloc has been to reenergize the Left's assault on the West: "It has lifted the burden of having to defend . . . an indefensible regime. Because the utopian vision is no longer anchored in the reality of an actually existing socialist state, the left can now indulge its nihilistic agenda without restraint."6

That sounds good, very neat, but I think something else is going on. Something in the wider society and across the political spectrum is permitting the Communistic Left an untrammeled indulgence: the gross fraud of sundering Communist theory from Communist practice, of detaching support for Communism from any moral responsibility for its crimes, of exempting those same crimes from judgment and punishment. The overlooked fact is that so much of the "utopian vision" that Horowitz refers to is now deeply anchored in the reality of our own actually existing state--and state of mind--and bastions as defended by the political Right.

It is the success of the Marx-inspired drive deep into the tissues of the West that is connected to the perplexing vitality of that Marx-inspired agenda. ...

[End excerpt]

---

A little of the spadework behind the sound bytes. But so much more work to be done.

[No One Special]

Youtube link for a relevant and recent Diana West interview. 4 minutes.

[DesertRhino]

Interesting. And by Christmas of 91, America was in the early stages of turning on Christianity and Christmas and everything decent.
The universities were in the early stages. Then in l more year, Clinton would be elected and the attack would begin in earnest.
Within less than 20 years, we would have elected a revolutionary marxist atheist who admires Lenin.

[onyx]

Wonderful, informative excerpt.

Immensely enjoyed the interview at the link.

Strange, in that I listened to it twice but the count remained at 80.

[Biggirl]

Good news! “PC”, which is so very much is hated is on its way out,thank-you Donald Trump.

[ETL]

Then in l more year, Clinton would be elected and the attack would begin in earnest. Within less than 20 years, we would have elected a revolutionary Marxist atheist who admires Lenin.

___________________________________________________

"Putin said Stalin deserves statues in his honor"

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20131219/185734707/Putin-Says-Stalin-No-Worse-Than-Cunning-Oliver-Cromwell.html
______________________________________

"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.'..."

"The more I see and read about Mr. Putin, in power since 1999, and his 'managed democracy,' the more apprehensive I become about the future of Russia and the safety of its neighbors.

If Putin believes that the dissolution of the Soviet Union into 15 independent states represents the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,' then it follows that Putin might well believe he should do something to repair the loss..."

http://web.archive.org/web/20090415000000*/http://www.hooverdigest.org/053/beichman.html
______________________________________

"The demise of the Soviet Union was the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century'," Putin said in 2005.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/11102.30640.0.0/asia/moscow-puts-the-soviet-squeeze-on-neighbor-nations
______________________________________

______________________________________

"'The Black Book of Communism,'; a scholarly accounting of communism's crimes, counts about 94 million murdered by the supposed champions of the common man (20 million for the Soviets alone), and some say that number is too low."

Forgetting the Evils of Communism: The amnesia bites a little deeper
By Jonah Goldberg, August 2008:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100711090651/http://article.nationalreview.com/365528/forgetting-the-evils-of-communism/jonah-goldberg
______________________________________

"The demise of the Soviet Union was the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century'," Putin said in 2005.

"Putin said Stalin deserves statues in his honor"

************************************************************

TRUMP: Vladimir Putin's praise is 'a great honor'

Business Insider ^ | December 17, 2015 | By Maxwell Tani

Republican US presidential front-runner Donald Trump is apparently "honored" that Russian President Vladimir Putin considers the real-estate magnate a "flamboyant" and "very talented" man.

"It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond," Trump said in a statement, according to Politico.

He continued: "I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect."

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[Zionist Conspirator]

The link between the Left and the Establishment it rails against has been a constant for a very long time, and a mainstay of right wing populism.

Many on the Right (including many FReepers) see the Left as a front for the old Eastern Seaboard Federalist elite and their aristocratic fellows in other countries. Then there is the theory that it is a plot of l'ancien regime to destroy the bourgeoisie and reinstall itself under a new name (Metternich actually invoked socialism as an answer to the new bourgeois economic freedom). And of course there's Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story "Young Goodman Brown."

Perhaps the whole thing is really just the old radical chrstian belief that the true G-d was "kicked off his throne" temporarily and has been replaced by an "evil counterpart." This sort of "theocratic anarchism" can be attributed to the J-- Witnesses.

[Monorprise]

He’s basically right without a real world example of a socialist state its easy for leftist in universities and the media to sell its slavery as a Utopian idea.

Just as it is easy for them to omit teaching about the realities of socialsim in history.

Beating the sovit union while not beating the communist in our schools and media may have been the best thing for their evil to fully infect a new stronger host the West.

It is already killing the west, and in the long run we will collapce into corruption and dysfunction just like the USSR and for the same reasons.

The real question is where will freedom be reborn? How can we here and now insure that the military capability our formerly free county has inherited does not become a weapon to crush true freedom as the USSR did?

Can we bring about the collapce and revolution before it distoys everything our forefathers built?

[Monorprise]

I don’t see trump winning the general election. As it is he’s likely to lose in a landslide of greater than 10 points which will likely devastate the Republican electorate.

If anything good happens as a result it will be a more militant electorate pushing towards independent being our only option to distory the evil empire Washington has become.

Unfortunately the legacy of our free forefathers left us in a strong military will likely be used to crush any such movement and later any such movement of freedom all together.

The communist have conquered America, and they used our children and schools to do it.

Fortunately their own inheirly flawed utopan idea of socialsim will fall on its own probably into merely corrupt chroniyism such as exist in Russia.

[Monorprise]

Putin is not our friend. Trump should make that clear. Even as he says you can respect him youbmust be Worthy of that respect.

[Biggirl]

I do not think that will happen, see the do not have the strong support that you claim. Plus except for O’Malley, Hillary and Bernie you have to remember that they not and may have issues. Also there is a lot of hidden support for the Donald.

[Biggirl]

The Dems.

[Biggirl]

Hillary and Bernie may have health issues.

[Monorprise]

We can only pray your right, and that if you are not we have a back up plan to deal with the disaster or at least mitigate it’s degree by bring Trump as close as possible.

Ultimately however our future is not in Washington at all but our States who must reassert their sovereignty and direct control of domestic matters. The key to that is of course the Budget, shut downs and dysfunction.

The presidency thou executive feit may promus to give us everything right now, but in the long run that, like the completely lawless executive and legislative power of the Federal “court” is a power that cannot co-exist within a free country.

Therefore on both accounts there must be a collapse in respect and enforceable. If it means we must abolish the Federal Government too, then so be it. In the modern world with the “UN” and NATO taking over security functionality as the Democrats insist they can, we have no more need for Washington than any other small nation in the world.

[Biggirl]

Article 5 is the answer.

[Monorprise]

While I acknowledge the utility of Article 5, I do not and will not accept its necessity in light of the inalienable right of the people to throw off repressive lawless governments as demonstrated in 1776 and 1861.

Article 5 is a tool for the majority to modify the existing Governments that follow the law. It is of only limited utility when Government magistrates choose not to follow the law as written and practiced(for hundreds of years) by the people in favor of their own law as newly applied and never before enforced by themselves.

Thus the only thing that could be accomplished in an article 5 convention would be to change the nature of the Federal ‘court’ system as to make it directly accountable to the States. Any other change would be unenforceable as the existing Constitution under the currently lawless and unaccountable federal ‘court’.

Short of the majorities necessary to do that, the preservation of our sacred rights will have to fall upon the reassertion of our most basic and inalienable right to revolution.

Unfortunately in light of the faithless backstabbing behavior of the north in 1861, we cannot even contemplate such a reassertion without a plan to win or prevent a subsequent conflict. On the bright side with just a little forethought it should not be hard to make the north want us to leave, or when necessary make them think twice about invading and enslaving our newly declared free country.

[Biggirl]

It is for the states to use and it is of help.