![](http://communities.msn.com/_Secure/0NwDxBMcTnig1FLMdFTQ1bETyKAYbISwkhgditujMd*Hhfb60BOucfz7wsG3Ok8R!yNFlPaWGKApVjOMgvLlSNg/bigbrodemo.jpg")
Posted on 03/12/2002 2:37:37 PM PST by Askel5
Excerpted from ...
|
Eliminating the "Enemy Image"One of the main themes of "new political thinking" was that the United States should "eliminate the image of the Soviet Union as the enemy" and, as Gorbachev stated in June 1989, "mov[e] from the notion of enemy to the notion of partner." (Washington Post, June 22, 1989) This theme encouraged the thought that the rivalry between the U.S. and the USSR was not an inevitable clash between competing and irreconcilable visions of freedom and totalitarianism, but rather the result of mistaken images which had arisen from hostile propaganda, and could therefore easily be "eliminated." The Soviet purpose in propagating this theme was made clear in late 1987 by Georgi Arbatov, the head of the Soviet Academy of Science's Institute on the United States and Canada, who wrote in a letter to the editor published in the December 8, 1987 issue of the New York Times that: ...We have a "secret weapon" that will work almost regardless of the American response - we would deprive America of The Enemy. And how would you justify without it the military expenditures that bleed the American economy white, a policy that draws America into dangerous adventures overseas and drives wedges between the United States and its allies, not to mention the loss of American influence on neutral countries? Wouldn't such a policy in the absence of The Enemy put America in the position of an outcast in the international community? While the Soviets were urging the West to discard its image of the Soviets as an "enemy," they were duplicitously providing support to anti-Western terrorist organizations. on June 5, 1992, Russian Information Minister Mikhail Poltoranin told a news conference, according to the Washington Post (June 6, 1992), that:
documents would soon be released showing that the authors of "new political thinking" - a sarcastic reference to Gorbachev - practiced a "double standard" in foreign policy. He said the documents showed that the Kremlin continued to have contacts with terrorist and other subversive groups well into the Gorbachev era. The Post article noted:
Recent assertions by Russian officials that the Soviet Union channeled funds and arms to "terrorist groups" have dismayed the Kremlin's traditional allies in the Third World. At today's press conference, an Arab journalist asked Poltoranin if he was not confusing "terrorist organizations" with "national liberation movements" that Moscow openly supported.
The "De-Ideologization of State-to-State Relations"The "de-ideologization of state-to-state relations" was one of the main conciliatory slogans of "new political thinking." To Western minds, it conjured up the image of relations between the Soviet Union and other countries becoming more pragmatic, less driven by doctrinaire, ideological concerns. For the "new thinkers," there were additional subtleties. Two Soviet placements in the Nigerian press in 1989 illustrate how this concept was understood by the Soviets. One, entitled "Respecting rules of international behavior," appeared in the March 29, 1989 issue of the Tide, authored anonymously by "A correspondent." It made it clear that, in the Soviet mind, the "de-ideologization of state-to-state relations" affected only one sphere of international affairs and did not mean the end of Soviet support for "national liberation movements." It stated:
De-ideologization is one of the basic principles of new thinking, advanced by the Soviet leadership. In the April 26, 1989 issue of the Tide, the article "Ideology and World Peace" by Georgi Mirsky made explicit the critical difference in Soviet ideology between "inter-state" and "international" relations. The former are to be "de-ideologized;" the latter cannot be. The article stated:
...international relations is a broader term that inter-state relations, the latter being part of the former. It is clear that there can be no de-ideologization of international relations, which include, apart from inter-state relations, the relations between public and political movements, political parties, etc. It is impossible to de-ideologize all this.Thus, the "de-ideologization of state-to-state relations" involved only a limited easing of tensions, in the Soviet mind. Relations between states were to be purged of ideological considerations, but not the other aspects of international relations: those involving parties, mass and professional organizations, public groups, etc.: precisely the arenas in which active measures operations were conducted. The Soviet leaders were careful not to communicate their full understanding of the principle of the "de-ideologization of state-to-state relations" to Westerners. In dealing with Western audiences, the conciliatory slogan was put forward without explanation. Soviet leaders could be confident that virtually all in the West, not being skilled in the intricacies of Marxist dialectics, would misinterpret it. This suited Soviet purposes. But in the Third World, the Soviets needed to explain to longtime allies that this conciliatory slogan did not mean that they were being abandoned. |
"One" meaning the militant atheism of both the Leninists and Maoists.
P.S. If you wish, I can go off on the arc of radical Islam (another communist objective) OR simply remind you that we've only really accomplished in Afghanistan exactly the "re-organization" to which we'd publicly committed ourselves with Russia a year in advance of 9/11.
I contend that the WTC/Pentagon bombings were a clenched fist to the face to keep us "on schedule" where the desires of the leninists (re: Afghanistan in particular) and the Maoists (re WTO membership) were concerned.
The fact that so many pukes in our "relief agencies" and Government saw fit to capitalize on the opportunity Crisis presented (particularly where their bipartisan support of China was concerned) only muddies for many the fact that we're now basically at the mercy of the "former communists" for whom we rolled out the red carpet to Pristina.
Kosovo being a "microcosm of what the world was about to be".
Whoa. So, the ChiComs and what's left of the CCCP were...what? Indirectly responsible for 9/11? Directly responsible?
It was a pilgrimage. I was blown away by much of what I saw ... particularly in the Churches. (Been a Russo-phile since I was in sixth grade or so.)
But if you think I'm impressed by the face-off between Lenin and Christ in Red Square when Jesus is stuck to the Holy Gate of GUM, you got another think coming.
Just because I draw a line between leninists and Russians doesn't mean I don't love Mother Russia and fully expect her to pull our chestnuts out of the fire once it comes down to East v. West.
I don't tend to go by appearances. I think actions speak louder than words ... although it's true I'm not a deconstructionists and do believe words MEAN something.
"Is IS".
Will Americans Vote For Communists, or Socialists, Or Fascists For NWO? - Of Course They Will
Wake up, guy. Game over.
Wake up, askel. Cold War over.
You see ... IMAGE is everything over here. (As it is there, to a certain extent. That's why Yeltsin took pains to do his best Lenin send-up standing on a tank as he shelled the "White House". They like to "send a message" from time to time themselves.)
Anyway, that old Evil Empire collapsed like a cheap dimestore umbrella and the wall fell neatly INTO the West and we cheered like it was the big Hollywood "Coke and a Smile" finish to that whole diabolical commie thing.
Lol ... you think they we were going to sell 'em the rope on which we'd hang if we were "enemies"? C'mon, surely they learned from the Bush/Harriman experience in WWII, that real 'Mericans don't take kindly to trading with the enemy.
Russia needs us? Duh. Who else is going to finish the job they started?
You and me both. I was thinking they could give him a little of his own medicine and euthanize Henry Kissinger after a protracted show trial to end all show trials as the Hegemon explains to the reeling West the Who What Where and When of how the soulless capitalist Maotais of little (genuine) faith sold us out to the totalitarians of extreme loyalty to the Long-Range ideological and geo-political objectives.
As you say, it won't happen, though.
Try calling me a friend, instead of comrade, it sounds much more agreeable :-)It's time to put the old Soviet Union to rest.
No doubt ... the New World's bustin' out all over!!
Just please note for the record that it's the Declaration of Independence -- not the Neo-Communist Manifesto -- that's disintegrating into dust as we "bury" the old Soviet Union.
I'm sure I'd be happy to call you friend, but perhaps should stick to Citizen so I'm flying well under the Newspeak radar by the time my local Citizens Council is established.
Suspicion Breeds Confidence!
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.