Wednesday, March 19, 2014

USSR Collapse Orchestrated to Start Anew

I have noted in previous posts that several credible sources have argued that the end of the USSR and the apparent "end" of Communism was anything but that*(excerpts at bottom).

The more that I consider this possibility, the more is makes sense. The states of the Communist world had painted themselves into a corner. Instead of working towards Trotsky's plan to ensure that the march of Marxism continued unabated, they went ahead with the idea of making their system function while the Western world was left to become stronger. Trotsky held that, in order for Marxism to work, the resources of the entire world had to be at their disposal. With that he had the understanding that the free market nations would be able to out-compete centrally-planned states with no private property. Marxists have traditionally held consumer societies and the middle class in contempt as these gave The People something to protect. If The People had a stake in how things are being done, they would function as sort of Fourth Estate and by extension resist what was being done for their own good.

High school and college textbooks had by the 1960's already contained content that indicated that Western Leftists were aware of this reality. Westerners "had it pretty good" and were not going to surrender their ill-gotten gains; they certainty wanted no part of the world that Stalin and Mao had created. Those who wrote what went into those textbooks expended tremendous efforts to ensure that we knew the differences between Stalin and Trotsky. The former held that the USSR could (with massive but rarely mentioned help in money and materiel from Western nations) create a functioning brand of Socialism and take the cause to the West later. The latter wanted to keep working to Convert the West. The idea was implanted  in our skulls for a reason; we needed to understand that legitimate Marxists had nothing to do (this of course was not true) with Stalin and that we had no reason to fear the onset of Marxism in our countries.

So we grew up with the story of poor Trotsky (made into the character of Snowball in Orwell's Animal Farm) being chased out of Russia by Stalin (Napoleon in the same book) and later subjected to a gruesome assassination committed by Stalin's henchmen. when i was a kid, it always seemed strange to me why they mentioned this seemingly insignificant event so often, but in the last few years it started to make sense:

Western Socialists had realized that the USSR would never beat the West - not on the battlefield, nor in the farm or factory. They needed to lull the West into a false sense of security by making the differences between the vision of Stain and Trotsky seem far greater than they actually were. Stalin's version was not real Socialism, and the chief advocate of supposedly compassionate Socialism was murdered.

All Western Socialists are Trotskyites at heart, and they will not stop until they succeed at bringing (firstly) the West under their yoke or are decisively beaten while trying to do so. Marxism must be in place everywhere if it is to succeed. 

With the gap between the USSR and the West growing greater through the 1950's, power brokers in the former realized that they needed a Plan B. The article below treats a KGB defector who states that the possibility of a planned collapse of the USSR (in order for Socialists to work without the burden of a failed system that they advocated sitting on their collective backs) was seriously considered.

The reason that this makes sense to me is that, once the 1980's arrived and the Leftist world could no longer hide the failure of the USSR (think of the Reagan - Gorbachev talks), the decision would be made to implement Plan B. The USSR would be dissolved, Socialist professors, writers, politicians, and others, would be free from the albatross hanging around their necks, and the message could be proclaimed in the West that 'It just hasn't been done/tried right yet". A new generation of Westerners, one that grew up having no fear of Socialism and trained to believe that the horrors of the USSR, China, Cambodia, Albania, North Korea, etc.were only aberrations and not germane to Socialism itself, could be properly indoctrinated.

We could in time have NBC safely describe Soviet Communism as a "pivotal experiment" - an act which both artificially detaches Marxism from the horrors of Stalin and others and implies that there is nothing inherently wrong with using People (indeed entire populations) for experimentation whether they agree to it or not.

We also would be purposely deprived of any closure for the crimes against humanity in the USSR as there were never any Nuremberg-type trials following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

"You’ve probably never heard of Anatoly Golitsyn, but in light of the developments in the Ukraine, you might want to look him up.

Golitsyn is an ex-KGB officer who defected to the West back in 1961, in his own words to “warn the American Government about the adoption of the current grand strategy for Communism and the political role of the KGB and the use of disinformation and controlled political opposition which the strategy entailed, and…help the West neutralise KGB penetration of their governments.”

Golitsyn’s overarching thesis, the so-called “grand strategy,” is laid out in painstaking detail over two books: “New Lies for Old” (1984) and “The Perestroika Deception” (1985), which can be summarized as follows:

The Soviets developed a long-range strategy to defeat the West back in the late 1950s based on a Leninist strategy of strategic deception and subterfuge, replete with a planned collapse — including potentially tearing down the Berlin Wall (which Golitsyn first detailed in a 1978 memorandum embedded at the end of this post) [embedded memo in in the link]  – in combination with perestroika and glasnost, words whose true definitions were far different than those the West ascribed to them.

These moves according to Golitsyn were designed to invite the West’s capital, technology and most of all gullibility/trust to Russia, which it could then use to build itself up, and, while the West moved leftward and intertwined itself inextricably with Russia and other socialist states, “converge” and dominate the West under a world government headed by none other than the Russians and Chinese.

Why pay attention to these 20- and 30-year-old books which put forth such an incredible conspiracy theory?

First, history has proven that Golitsyn was shockingly accurate in the explicit predictions he laid out in “New Lies for Old.” As noted in Mark Riebling’s 1994 title “Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA,” of the 148 falsifiable predictions Golitsyn put forth in his 1984 work, by 1993 139, or 94% were proven correct. Some of these predictions are detailed here.

A quick flip through “The Perestroika Deception” and the various memoranda that Golitsyn penned to the CIA (again, one such incredible 1978 document of which is embedded at the bottom of this post) simply jump off the page in an era in which Vladimir Putin who lamented that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a great if not the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century is leading Russia, wielding substantial power over Syria, Iran and now the Ukraine, in the face of U.S. opposition................................

The KGB leaders and their comrades in the Soviet Union unlike the Nazis at the end of World War II were never put on trial to atone for their mass murders. They were never purged from their leadership positions. They are still running the country today under what the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to ever defect called “the first intelligence dictatorship in history.”............."

"............Born in the mid 60's I grew up with the most tangible example of the term Iron Curtain an already-established reality. As primary and high school students during the latter end of that (Berlin Wall) era, young people in my age group lived with the constant reminder that not only did Marxism fail miserably, but that states with that system were left with no option other than hem their own subjects in for their own good or face collapse from an exodus of people who did not know what was good for them.

We all knew, and had seen, some of  the accounts of people who had been killed or imprisoned as a result of trying to get through or over the "anti-fascist barrier". As a consequence of the (very possibly a purposeful) failure of the West to demand an Nuremberg-type account of the crimes committed by Communist states, many are not aware of the penalties meted out by the Stasi to would-be escapes, and in some cases, the families of these. Some of course will remember the inspirational 80's movie Night Crossing, which portrayed the courageous efforts ( I will not spoil the end) of one family to "get out of Dodge".

I was discharged from the Marine Corps in mid-1989. By the autumn of that year, the predictions of political writers ( I vividly recall one from either Time or Newsweek around the year 1983 but have since been unable to locate an archive of it) were coming to fruition much more quickly than predicted. With neighboring Warsaw Pact states opening their borders, people were leaving Honecker's paradise - where Socialism was said to "work" at a pace that forced the issue.

By the time I left work on November 9th, 1989, the news was covering one - and only one event, The German Democratic Republic had ordered that traffic would no longer be impeded by those seeking to enter West Berlin. Tears welled up in my eyes as I watched one news anchor after another being unable to maintain their usual stoic demeanor - some of them had had smiles the entire time that they were speaking.

By chance, the next day was the Marine Corps birthday ball. November 10th is a big deal for Marines. As a new reservist, my then-wife and I attended our units celebration at a wonderful event hall. We all were still elated.

Readers of previous posts will know that I am a magnet for Marxists, anti Catholic Fundamentalists, anti-Catholic Catholics, radial atheists and proponents of eugenics, etc. If I don't run into them, they find me like honeybees that have been directed to a target by scout bees. My Marine reserve unit was no exception; we had more than our fair share of college student reservists who were dyed-in-the-wool Marxists. One is particular was a Haitian immigrant who I found to be one of the very few Marxists with whom I could speak without desiring to subject him to an overhand right. It is of course wrong to rub salt in a wound, but I could not resist giving him a parting (or Parthian) shot with a good-humored remark about the Wall. He took it well and hugged me as we left the ball.

Four the last seven or so years, however, I have wished that  I had kept in contact with him as he deserves his chance to return the favor.

For the next two years, though, I was certain that there would never be any reason to admit that I was wrong. The USSR folded late in 1991, as did Yugoslavia and other Marxist governments such as  Albania. USSR-subsidized states such as North Korea and Cuba foundered in the wake of Marxist collapse I also have vivid memories of holding my one and a half year-old daughter while the music video Wind of Change by the Scorpions, which understandably was played very often at that time, blared on the TV. I knew that changes were coming and that they arrive soon, but still I truly felt that my oldest, being one one the "children of tomorrow", would have far less to fear than we did.

When Bill Clinton unseated G.H.W. Bush (history has since proven him to be no friend of real Liberty nor of the US) for the presidency, I wrote the event off as a reflexive reaction to a bad recession and the usual post-war (First Gulf War) tendencies of voters to drop the guy they trusted when things were bad. I still firmly believed that all of the Marxists in the Halls of Academia would be "laughed out of court" for their continued assertions that Socialism is inevitable and indeed feasible.

So convinced was I with this belief that I was even naive enough to assume that pigs like Venezuela's Chavez would be voted out of office once he had proclaimed his desire to bring about Socialism enough times. What I mean by that was I could not conceive the possibility that so many people would be evil or stupid enough to want something that was proven to be stifling, unworkable, and a guarantee of poverty and stagnation.

Where I went wrong was in a failure to realize that all modern Marxists are Trotskyites at heart.As Trotsky understood, Marxism's only chance of succeeding was if free market/capitalistic nations were eliminated from the playing board. "Communism just hasn't been tried/done right" would be the new mantra for Western Socialists. The latter have long recognized the crucial reality that, in order worldwide Socialism to work, three things are needed.

The first is that all market economy (or those with vestiges of this) must be taken over by the Democratic process, hence our "Democratic Socialists", the now-Marxist-driven US Democratic Party, and those of the US Republican establishment, who are all, to varying degrees, prepared for the ultimate end of national sovereignty and either a one-wold government or a collection of regional governing bodies.

Make every nation Socialist, and there are no longer any places to which ungrateful citizens can flee.

The second is the incorporation of some free market features (at least until the entire deal is done)- only a tiny fraction of real Western Socialists want all businesses  nationalized. They recognize that there has to be people who are profit-driven if good products and services can be available. The key difference is that Western Socialists still need lots of real power, so they need to reduce the pool of private businesses, including farmers, to a very manageable amount. Here is where the oligarchs and mega-conglomerates/corporations come into the picture. By crushing regulations of all types (environmental, labor, health care, etc), and a massive importation of cheap labor (especially illegals n the US), Socialists can pare down the amount of private businesses down to a level that can be controlled. This is where the plutocrats, big bankers, other big-time speculators, and actual producers alike, and see their chance to gain everything while risking very little; they have joined forces with the Left with the expectations of establishing a virtual permanent  ruling class of business interests who are partnered with the Intellectuals/Social Engineers.who together will run the entire show. Even the royal houses of Western Europe have not opposed a plan that at least promises that their families will be safe in their hereditary offices for a long time to come. George Soros and his cronies have done their homework.

The third is actually the first step, but I felt the need to cite the first two to present a clear picture. The People of market-economy nations had to be conditioned to accept Marxism. Early 20th century Marxists were shocked that the proletariat did not rise up against the ruling classes in WWI. In response, they got together and correctly realized their problem -Western Civilization - its very existence was lamented by early Marxists such as Georg Lukaks and Antonio Gramsci . When Lukaks asked his Henry II-esque rhetorical question "Who will save us from Western Civilization ", he meant that this particular culture/society stood squarely in the way of the advance of worldwide Marxism. The concepts of rule of law, religion, patriotism, historical legacies, individualism, were too entrenched in the hearts and minds of the people to allow for the march of Communism. As the people did not know what was good for them, they had to be shorn of these attachments. What we got was "Cultural Marxism" - the plan of the Western Marxists to undermine the attitudes of Western peoples about themselves and their societies......................"

".......A few years before I retired from law enforcement, an officer who was only just over four years younger than I was assigned to my section. As he had changed careers much later in life (prior to the downward spiral of our economy , he had a successful career in sales), he was much closer to me in age than other officers with two or less years of service. I was close to retirement, but he was just getting started.

We were also on opposite sides of the cultural and political spectrum. As I was a supervisor who took tremendous pride in avoiding anything that could be perceived as bullying or misusing my position, I ensured that it would be he who brought up topics for discussion and exercised great caution when these topics were addressed. Interestingly, this practice helped me to learn quite a bit and get a clear picture of the hyper-liberal mindset.

I had finished four years in the Marines by the time he had entered  high school. Little by little, I began to understand that he had very little knowledge of the threats that we had faced during the late 70's through the early to mid 80's. He also had only known the USSR and Warsaw Pact era as a period that was at its very end. With no knowledge of what life in the USSR was like, and soothed by a life as a teenager-young adult devoid of  any concerns of the spread of Marxism, he never felt the need to question much of anything. He would take it for granted that, as were are still told, that the Liberal Democracies "are there to help the people". In short, he was the perfect candidate for indoctrination be Trotskyite Leftist professors who could act as if the (in their words) "aberrations" of the failed Communist states were only blips on the radar and that Socialism was still a system that can work - and indeed that it needs to come into being in the West.

Note these were never his actual words. I was able to piece together his attitudes from the positions that he advocated on the topics that he brought up. 

For him, the Western deconstructionist-tool Global Warming/Climate Change was as real as was the dark that comes with the sunset. The claims on the rates of warming presented in the movie An Inconvenient Truth were taken as facts without any concern that the makes of the film may be intentionally misleading the viewers, nor was there any suspicion that they had could have been in error.

When he recalled the 2004 Bush/Kerry presidential election (one that gave us no really good choice), he - in an effort to make a point, noted that the French and Italians both wanted Kerry to win. At this I dropped my guard and explained that the last thing that American should want for our society is to be more like those of France and Italy (I am of half-Italian ancestry, but... Berlesconi?). I added that their societies are collapsing and that this is due in a large part to a wholesale abandonment of their religion, culture, and sense of historical identity. To illustrate my point, I brought up my example of a man who has been in a coma for four years and wakes up on election day. Desperately wanting to vote, but unaware of the issues, he asks for English translations of the editorial sections of French and Italian newspapers. He reads those sections, notes who they want to be President of the US, and votes for the other guy - problem solved.............

The excising of American history in primary school was even more thorough for his time that it was for mine. I recall a day when he noted that G.W. Bush was elected President despite having failed in several business ventures. Not only was he fully ignorant that Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson and other key American leaders also perennial failures (as well as figures in worlds history) in business but were successful leaders or statesmen, he then went to the 2008 election and voted for B.H.Obama - a man with virtually no experience in anything whatsoever.

None of this is intended to be an indictment of the man; I find him to be likable and one of the few Liberals who truly thinks that he has the right ideals. What I see in him is far too many of the people who came of age in the years after my age group. They have no memory of Communism save the candy-coated version that was conveniently labeled as not actual Communism after all. They were subjected to mass- indoctrination while we basked in the glory of a post-USSR world. We ignored the attacks on "dead.white men". that began on the early 90's which left room for them to learn that the only culture to eliminate slavery should take the blame for slavery. They have never learned that the 'War on Poverty" has done nothing but make more people poor.

He and they who followed have very little understanding of Marxism and thus have no defense against the current wave of Marxist thought that pervades the Western world....."
I was off Monday night as I attended a speech*(video at bottom) by Worldwide Marxism expert Trevor Loudon who, fortunately for us, was able to make time to speak in New Jersey.  I have mentioned him and his work in previous posts, and he did not disappoint. His depth of knowledge on avowed Marxists, "Democratic Socialists" (Bringing Marxism legally via the democratic process) and other Leftists that operate in the West is simply staggering. Although many are aware that the Halls of Academia are crawling with these sick types, few Americans have the slightest idea of the amount of committed Leftists that hold key elected and appointed positions in our nation.

Mr. Loudon is very clear with his message. Marxists in the US have not only refused to give up the fight, they have actually, often by clever use of terms and programs that Americans (who fail to see where these are taking us) will accept, to advance their agenda - to bring about Marxism in the  United States.

Of particular note is that one US group - The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism,  has as one of its ends to lobby Congress for us to pay reparations to Vietnam for damage from Agent Orange that was used during the war. Did you catch the name? Marxist revel in co-opting  terms and names from our struggle for independence. When faced with crackdowns from the Crown, the American colonies created Committees of Correspondence to coordinate their efforts and facilitate communication when our colonial assemblies were shut down on orders from London.

That reality is a hard pill to swallow for us. We see Marxism as a phenomena that is brought about by revolution (and something that we thought failed in the early 90's), not by the electoral process, but this is exactly the means by which they have made such tremendous gains. Devotees of Cultural Marxism have brainwashed many into enthusiastically accepting  a wholesale abandonment of the civic virtue that is crucial for a republic to survive, a detestation of our history and culture, and an even greater desertion from our Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Mr. Loudon, in a methodical manner, outlined the fact that, in addition to the many Leftist politicians, think-tanks, and Academicians in the US, our labor unions are now virtually fully in the hands of Leftists who are working feverishly to undermine the very people whom they profess to represent. Americans whose hearts normally rule their intellect would be sobered at the revelation that the powerful movement to grant citizenship to individuals who entered the US illegally  is one of the key factors in the agenda to, to quote Bertolt Brecht - "...dissolve the people. And elect another".

I have noted in previous posts that the US is perilously close to finding itself with an electorate that will consistently elect candidates that make Obama look like William F. Buckley. Mr. Loudon correctly noted that the next three years will make or break the US. If we fail in the 2014 and 2016 elections, the table will be set for the further election of radical Leftist candidates who will eagerly work to reduce the People of this great republic to abject servitude under a Socialist state. 

His prognosis for us is a scant three years if we do nothing or too little........"

No comments:

Post a Comment