In October 2015, I posted an installment of Update Brazil with Jeff R. Nyquist and Allan dos Santos. They interviewed author and political researcher Trevor Loudon on the communist infiltration of the U.S. government that occurred over many years.
The accepted and popular history of communism is that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. But those of us who research and study the history communism know that nothing could be farther from the truth. If anything, socialism (i.e. communism) has only strengthened its grip on the West. This shouldn’t really come as a surprise to anyone, considering who are current president is, and the fact that we have a full-blown big “C” communist running for president on the Democrat ticket (i.e. Bernie Sanders).
Many people believe modern-day Russia has abandoned its communist past. But as I attempted to show in my aforementioned article, former KGB officer Vladimir Putin has never relinquished his communist roots; nor did Mikhail Gorbachev, for that matter. In 2000, Putin reinstated the Soviet national anthem when he took the helm of the Russian Federation (cf. Soviet Union). Many of the symbols of the Soviet regime still remain in place to this day.
Now, CNS News reports Vladimir Putin stated on Monday that he rather likes communism.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday he still likes the ideas of theoretical communism “very much,” and recalled that unlike many others he had not publicly destroyed his Communist Party membership card, but still keeps it at home.
“In contrast to many functionaries I did not throw my membership card away or burn it in public,” he told supporters in the southern city of Stavropol. “I still keep it at home.”
The Itar-TASS news agency quoted the former KGB official as saying that he had been rank-and-file member and not an office-bearer of the Communist Party.
“I cannot say that I was a hardline advocate of the communist ideology,” he said. “Yet my attitude to all this was very delicate.”
Putin said that while serving in the KGB he liked – and continues today to like – communist and socialist ideas “very much.”
Referring to the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism” – a set of 12 rules every party member was expected to follow – he said the “wonderful ideas” resembled the Bible in many ways.
However, the reality was different in practice.
“The practical embodiment of these wonderful ideas in our country was very far from what the utopian socialists had proclaimed,” he said.
The comments came as Putin critically addressed, for the second time in five days, the legacy of Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin.
Last Thursday, he caused a stir by saying, during a meeting of the Presidential Council for Science and Education, that Lenin had been responsible for ideas that led ultimately to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Putin said then that Lenin’s ideas like providing regions with autonomy “planted an atomic bomb under the building that is called Russia which later exploded.”
In his address in Stavropol on Monday – to activists of his Russian Popular Front movement – Putin reiterated those points, recalling that Lenin and his successor Joseph Stalin had disagreed on the matter, with Stalin arguing in favor of a unitary state.
Stalin was overruled, and Lenin’s model that allowed for the possibility of territories seceding led to the Soviet Union’s eventual breakup, he said.
(In his 2005 state of the nation address, Putin famously described the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century.”)
Putin also criticized Lenin for the execution of Russia’s last royal ruler, Tsar Nicholas II, along with his family and servants in 1918, and for killing large numbers of Orthodox priests.
“Why did they kill Dr. Botkin?” he asked, in reference to the slain court physician Eugene Botkin. “Why did they kill the servants, people of proletarian origin by and large?”
“What for? Just for the sake of concealing a crime,” Putin said.
Not too long ago, a friend of mine pointed out something that I had never noticed before. Aeroflot, one of the largest and oldest airlines in the world, is the flag carrier of the Russian Federation. It was founded in 1923. It is now a quasi-private enterprise. Aeroflot was the official national airline of the Soviet Union. Aeroflot is still considered the de facto national airline of Russia. Interestingly, Aeroflot still retains the hammer and sickle on its official logo to this very day, which can be seen below under the “A” and “E” below.
Another example of communist symbolism still present in Russia today is that of Mosfilm, one of the largest and oldest film studios in Russia and Europe. It, too, was founded in 1923. Below is a screencap of the opening credit for Mosfilm that appears in the 2012 Russian film “White Tiger.” Clearly present is the hammer and sickle being held aloft by the two statuesque figures of a man and woman (i.e. “the workers”), and the red star shining atop a building spire in the background.
Now, imagine, if you will, modern-day Germany still retaining the symbolism of the Third Reich. What do you think the international reaction would be? And yet the Soviet regime, which is responsible for the deaths of millions, has never been held to account for its monstrous crimes against humanity and its own people … quite the contrary.
Bryan Cranston is famous for his role as meth cook “Walter White” on the AMC drama series, “Breaking Bad.” He is playing the role of Stalinist Communist and Hitler apologist Dalton Trumbo in the new film, “Trumbo.” Allan H. Ryskind, author of the book, Hollywood Traitors, says the film “Trumbo” celebrates Dalton Trumbo, a major Hollywood Ten figure and longtime Communist enthusiast. Ryskind, the son of famous Hollywood screenwriter Morrie Ryskind, reports that Trumbo was a full-fledged Stalinist who had the distinction of siding with three of the most barbarous dictators in the 20th century: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and North Korea’s Kim-Il Sung. The film portrays communism, from Trumbo’s viewpoint, as a philosophy of “sharing,” not mass murder. The film also attacks anti-communists in Hollywood such as John Wayne.
Dalton Trumbo was a Hollywood screenwriter in the 1940s who was a Soviet, Stalinist sympathizer, and a hardcore Communist. Trumbo is listed as one of the “Hollywood Ten,” along with nine other screenwriters, producers and directors.
John Howard Lawson (1894 – 1977)
It was John Howard Lawson who, in the mid-1930s, organized the Hollywood branch of the Communist Party. Lawson was a determined New York Communist and a writer for theater productions. He moved to Hollywood and began his recruiting efforts under the aegis of Moscow.
Prior to 1939, the Hollywood Communists, along with Communist Party members worldwide, were vehemently anti-fascist and anti-Nazi. But, following the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact (i.e. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) by Hitler and Stalin in 1939, the group switched their stance—literally overnight—from anti-Nazi to pro-Nazi. This sudden switch in position was ordered by Josef Stalin. Some Communists did, in fact, leave the Party as a result of the abrupt switch in position. But most members of the Communist International (i.e. Comintern) dutifully obeyed.
Dalton Trumbo did not leave the Party following the Kremlin’s reversal on fascism and Nazism. Instead, Trumbo publicly voiced his support for fascism and Nazism for two years. While the Hollywood Communists had urged assistance and aid for the victims of fascist and Nazi aggression prior to the Non-Aggression Pact, afterwards the group urged the FDR administration to stay out of World War Two. They were more than happy to allow Hitler and Stalin to carve up Europe as they saw fit.
When Hitler’s armies attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, the group quickly reverted back to their anti-fascist and anti-Nazi stance. After World War Two, Stalin reverted back to anti-western class warfare.
During the war, the Hollywood Communists began to write screenplays for a raft of movies with a patriotic theme, such as 30 Seconds Over Tokyo, Action in the North Atlantic, Sahara, Pride of the Marines, Destination Tokyo, etc. These were movies that cheered the U.S. war efforts. But the motive driving the men who produced these films wasn’t meant to promote U.S. patriotism, but rather in defense of Stalin’s grip on Russia, since the U.S. and Soviet Russia now had a common enemy in the Nazis. The pro-U.S. stance during the war was only to bolster support for the Soviet Union as an ally against Hitler.
Howard E. Koch (1901 – 1995)
The Hollywood Communists literally gained a stranglehold on the production of any anti-communist movies to the point that they were slowed, and even stopped. The scholar Kenneth Billingsley discovered Dalton Trumbo wrote in the communist publication The Daily Worker about films which he said communist influence in Hollywood had prevented from being made, such as the proposed adaptations of Arthur Koestler’s anti-totalitarian works Darkness at Noon and The Yogi and the Commissar, which described the rise of communism in Russia.
American playwright and screenwriter Howard E. Koch was able to convince a Hollywood studio to pay for a “Soviet advisor” to assist him in writing the script for Mission to Moscow, a 1943 film directed by Michael Curtiz, based on the 1941 book by the former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph E. Davies. The movie was produced in response to a request by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A scene from the 1943 movie Mission to Moscow.
“I believe, sir, that history will record you as a great builder for the benefit of mankind.”
—Ambassador Joseph E. Davies to Josef Stalin
Koch’s hand-picked Soviet advisor was a KGB agent whose job was to make sure the script was current with the Party line. At a time of famine, the first thing the principals encounter at the Moscow rail station is a throng of happy food vendors selling everything from bread to smoked salmon. Stalin’s show trials are explained as a rooting out of Nazi spies. The Finns are shown attacking the USSR. And this was a Hollywood movie!
After the WWII, the Hollywood Communists dutifully followed Stalin’s lead and began attacking U.S. policies, and denying Soviet atrocities. They even refused to allow the presentation of evidence that the Jews in Russia were being ruthlessly and brutally persecuted by the Stalin regime. Dalton Trumbo audaciously claimed three-and-a-half million Jews were living peacefully in Soviet Russia “under the protection of the laws that ban discrimination of any kind.”
In 1947, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) launched an investigation in Hollywood into the communist influence within the U.S. film industry. The focus of the investigation initially started with a German Communist, Gerhart Eisler, whose brother was involved with movie-making.
Gerhart Eisler, Brunhilda Eisler and Eisler’s attorney Carol Weiss King in February, 1952.
Louis Budenz told the HUAC that Eisler’s role in the Communist Party of the United States was to lay down Comintern discipline to “straying functionaries”. However, the most powerful evidence against Eisler came from his sister, Ruth Fischer. She described her brother as “the perfect terrorist type”. Fischer had not been on speaking terms with her brother since she was expelled from the German Communist Party (KPD) in 1926 after attacking the policies of Joseph Stalin…. She told the HUAC that Eisler had carried out purges in China in 1930 and had been involved in the deaths of numerous comrades, including Nikolay Bukharin.
Time Magazine reported: “One of the witnesses who denounced him was his sister, sharp-chinned, black-haired ex-German Communist Ruth Fischer, the person who hates him most. In the beginning, as children of a poverty-stricken Viennese scholar, they had adored each other. Ruth, the older, became a Communist first. Gerhart, who won five decorations as an officer of the Austrian Army in World War I, joined the party in the fevered days of 1918. They worked together. When Ruth, then a bundle of sex appeal and intellectual fire, went to Berlin, Gerhart followed. She became a leader of the German Communist Party, and a member of the Reichstag. But Gerhart took a different ideological tack, began to covet power for himself. He applauded when Ruth was banished from the party by the Stalinist clique.”
The HUAC investigators were approached by a number of anti-communist screenwriters, producers and movie stars who were victims of the Hollywood Communists’ stranglehold on the American film industry. It was the anti-communists who were the victims of blacklisting, not the other way around.
Originally, 19 unfriendly people were called before the House committee, before being whittled down to ten. The list of the “Hollywood Ten” includes Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo. The ten remained uncooperative throughout the entire HUAC investigation. But the House committee produced indisputable proof that each was a member of the Communist Party.
Contrary to the well-established myth that it was HUAC who blacklisted the Hollywood Ten and barred them from work within the film industry, it was, in fact, the motion picture executives at the time who banned the Hollywood Ten. The blacklist resulted from a meeting of fifty top officials with the Motion Picture Association of America, the Association of Motion Picture Producers and the Society of Motion Picture Producers held at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City, in 1947.
Eric Johntson, who was head of the Motion Picture Producers Association at the time, spoke on behalf of the industry, stating, “We will not knowingly employ a Communist or a member of any party or group which advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force of by any illegal or unconstitutional methods.”
On June 5, 1947, while speaking to the Screen Writers Guild, Johnston went on to say:
“I don’t like American Communists. Bluntly, I think they are treasonable and subversive. They are potential foreign agents — they are dopes and suckers for the 14 men who sit in the Kremlin and pull the strings which make Communists toe the party line everywhere. Let me make it clear that I do not mean to imply that an American citizen has no right to advocate a collectivist form of society in America if he so desires. That’s his privilege under the Constitution. But there is no Constitutional immunity for sedition, subversion or treason. I want to see it become a joke to be a Communist in America. I want it to be fashionable to radiate conviction and pride in our democratic capitalism.
“We ought to ridicule the so-called intellectuals who have made a good living denouncing those who believe in the American system as having economic halitosis and political b.o. [i.e. ‘body oder’] Hollywood can take the lead.”
Another common myth associated with the blacklisting of the Hollywood Ten is that it was perpetrated by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Joe McCarthy was not part of the House committee. McCarthy’s committee ran from 1953 to 1954. Besides, he was a senator. McCarthy was chairman of the Senate Internal Security Committee. He had nothing to do with investigating Communists in Hollywood. The blacklisting of the Hollywood Ten was not done by HUAC, or Sen. Joseph McCarthy, but by executives within their own industry!
Many of the Hollywood Communists lost their jobs, or were sent to jail. But many continued to their work under an assumed name, or going abroad to work. They eventually returned to Hollywood, and have practically been deified by the Hollywood set. Of the ten, only Edward Dmytryk expressed any misgivings. He wrote a big book about his experience entitled Odd Man Out.
In the 1990s, Dalton Trumbo snickered, “Yeah, we were Communists … so what?” He never regretted his rejection of Americanism, or his support for totalitarianism, or his glorification of Josef Stalin.
The blacklist was broken in the 1960s. The Hollywood Ten started to use their real names. In the 80s and 90s several films were produced—such as Legacy of the Hollywood Blacklist (1987) and Guilt by Suspicion (1991)—glorifying the Hollywood Ten, and portraying them as virtual “heroes.”
In the latest installment of the LoudonClear radio show, Trevor Loudon interviews “Jimmy from Brooklyn,” who has been a regular radio guest around the country for years, particularly New York. He has been following and studying communism for the past 40 to 50 years. Jimmy grew up on the lower-eastside of Manhattan among a large immigrant population, many who had emigrated from Eastern Europe. At around the time of the Vietnam War, Jimmy started to see communists renting storefronts, displaying the communist flag, and collecting money for the enemy.
Their is a common belief among many Americans and Westerners that communism collapsed following the fall of the Berlin Wall. But for some of us who study and research communism and Marxist ideology, we are of a very different mindset. Not only has communism not been defeated, it has only increased and strengthened since the alleged collapse of communism. In every region in the world, there are problems. And these problems often times have a common thread—collectivism.
Granted, communists, for the most part, no longer refer to themselves as “communists.” Instead, they use what I call “lovable labels,” preferring to refer to communism as liberalism, progressivism, economic democracy, democratic socialism, etc. The communists have simply given up a word (i.e. “communism”), in order to strengthen their position. As the former director for the Institute for the Study of the United States of America and Canada, Georgiy Arbatov, once said, “We took away the image of the enemy.”
Communists have long used “collapse as a strategy of attack.” As Jimmy explains, the Soviets collapsed the American Communist Party twice. There was the false collapse in the Soviet Union during the 1920s called “the Trust.” The Soviets collapsed the Communist Party in both Egypt and Algeria.
The strategy of collapse is based on the maxims of the ancient Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu—meaning: when strong, feign weakness.
Via The Art of War by Sun Tzu:
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him…. Pretend to be weak, that [the enemy] may grow arrogant.
During Trevor’s interview with Jimmy, the topic of left-wing radical Francis Fox Piven came up. Piven’s name is tied to what is known as the “Cloward-Piven Strategy”—the intentional collapsing of the “system” by overwhelming the bureaucracy with impossible demands, mainly through systematic abuse of the welfare rolls. The goal is to break the “system,” then declare “capitalism” a failure, in order to bring about a “new system.”
Francis Fox Piven has been closely allied the Institute for Policy Studies, a tax-exempt communist front group. Jimmy claims Piven spoke at another KGB front group, the Brecht Forum, and stated that President Barack H. Obama, under the radar, “placed plenty of good people throughout the government.” According to Jimmy, Francis Fox Piven said, “We’re going to get the changes we want, largely through minorities and immigration.” Obama has brought in a number of people from the Institute for Policy Studies as advisers.
Jimmy draws a disturbing parallel to what occurred in Czechoslovakia, in 1948, when the country was taken over by communists, to what President Obama might be attempting to do here in the United States. When the communists took over Czechoslovakia, they did it over time, little by little (i.e. progressively), without firing a shot. They worked from the top-down at the government level, and from the bottom-up via “community organizing” efforts at the street level. The communists took over all the various law enforcement agencies of the government; they squeezed out and neutralized the opposition. This is the strategy Barack Obama’s mentor Frank Marshall Davis might have taught Obama.
I’ll have a lot more on a number of the topics covered here in an upcoming article that examines, in detail, the “double-game” or “scissors” strategy (i.e. dialectics) communists employ to herd the “masses,” from both the left and the right, toward their ultimate goal of worldwide socialism.
This week on Update Brazil, hosted by geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist and Brazilian conservative Allan L. Dos Santos, author and researcher Trevor Loudon sat down with Jeff and Allan to discuss some of the background on the communist infiltration of the U.S. government, the recent rise of the Russian “bear” on the world stage, and the rise of communism in South America.
It is not uncommon for people like Allan, Jeff, Trevor, and others (myself included), who try and warn Americans and Westerners about the rise of communism and socialism around the world—including the United States, Central America, South America, Africa, etc.—to be labeled “conspiracy theorists” and “red scare wackjobs.” From my own experience, this sort of ad hominem typically comes from people who are, for the most part, completely ignorant of the history of communism and Marxist ideology; or are themselves socialists, communists or “fellow travelers” (i.e. sympathizers).
The prevailing view since the late 80s and early 90s that communism collapsed following the fall of the Berlin Wall becomes “problematic” when one takes a long, hard look at the role Russia and China are currently playing on the world stage.
For example, Russia, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, is making some ominous moves eerily similar to the bad old days of the Soviet Union. Not only has Putin begun to flex Russia’s military muscle in Ukraine and Syria as of late, but the signs of Putin’s desire to return the former Soviet Union back to its “glory days” stretches back to the time he first grabbed hold of the reins of power. Putin has publicly stated that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” While some leftist sources will sometimes try and downplay Putin’s lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union, Putin’s actions toward trying to rehabilitate the old USSR should give one pause.
In 2000, Vladimir Putin asked the Russian Parliament to reinstate the national anthem of the Soviet Union, originally written for Josef Stalin.
In 2014, Vladimir Putin renamed an elite police unit after the notorious Felix Dzerzhinsky (see video below); considered the founder of the KGB (now the FSB), and the first head of the feared Bolshevik secret police force known as the Cheka. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin appointed Dzerzhinsky as Commissar of the Internal Affairs and head of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution (Cheka) in December 1917.
In an interview with Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918, Dzerzhinsky justified the use of terror:
We stand for organized terror – this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life.
We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal’s own confession. (The Bolsheviks, Volume II: How the Soviets Seize Power, by John D. Loscher, pp. 549-550.)
If you visit the official website of the Russian Federal Security Forces (i.e. fsb.ru), there is a link to a list of former FSB “leaders.” The very first leader mentioned is Felix Dzerzhinsky. The list also contains such cringe-worthy figures as Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrentiy Beria, Yuri Andropov, among others. Also included in the list is Vladimir Putin, who was a former KGB officer and “director of FSB Russia” from July 1998 to August 1999.
The statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the former head of the Soviet secret police on “Dzerzhinsky Square.”
For many years a statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky stood prominently in front of the notorious Lubyanka building, the headquarters of the KGB. The statue was such a dominant feature that Lubyanka Square was nicknamed “Dzerzhinsky Square.” The statue was toppled with a crane by protesters, in 1991, following the collapse of the coup against the then-Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.
The toppling of Dzerzhinsky’s statue has not been without controversy in Russia. There have long been calls by some to restore the statue to its plinth. In June 2015, Radio Free Europereported the statue may be “inching back” to its old KGB headquarters:
On June 11, the Moscow City Election Commission ruled to allow a referendum on restoring the statue to the site — a concession the commission had previously declined to make.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been numerous calls from the Communist Party and powerful noncommunist politicians such as former Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov to restore the statue to its pedestal.
In an upcoming article, I will be digging deeper into what is known as the dialectical strategy. Dialectics is a very important concept to understand when it comes to radical left-wing strategy and tactics, and is something many Americans and Westerners fail to grasp. In a nutshell, the dialectical strategy could be described as two opposing forces (e.g. left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, nationalist vs. internationalist, etc.) which appear to be diametrically opposed to one another; but are, in fact, working in concert to bring about a predetermined outcome. Jeff Nyquist calls it the “scissors strategy”—controlling both the far-right and far-left simultaneously. The target is being cut from both the right and left blades, so to speak—all under the control of “one hand.” Another analogy that could used to describe the dialectical strategy is the wings of a bird. While the right and left wings can operate independently of one another, they are still connected to the same body; which, in turn, is controlled by one brain.
It is not uncommon for communists to hold diametrically opposed positions on various social, economic or cultural issues concurrently. This is dialectics in practice: two seemingly opposing positions are working toward the same predetermined end (i.e. international socialism).
For example, the radical left may support gay rights in one country, while opposing gay rights in another country. The Bolsheviks legalized homosexuality; but Stalin banned it. (Interestingly, the homosexual movement was ostensibly started in the United States by Henry “Harry” Hay, an unabashed communist.)
Trevor Loudon and Jeff Nyquist point out that Vladimir Putin is cultivating France’s Front National, Germany’s PEGIDA movement (typically referred to as a “far-right” or “extreme nationalist” organization by Western media), and anti-Islamic blocs in Italy and the Netherlands. While Putin is seen in the West as fighting radical Islam, he is simultaneously funding radical Islam. The Russians have always supported radical Islam against the West since the 1920s, Loudon explains.
Westerners, particularly on the right, see things through the prism of national or economic interests, while nations like Russia and China have long-term strategic goals heavily rooted in ideology. Russia, China and Iran do not think in terms of election cycles. Jeff Nyquist points out the Russians spent a lot of time in Afghanistan infiltrating Islamic groups to increase their hold over radical Islam. Putin clamps down on radical Islam within Russia; but outside of Russia, he will arm ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.
Trevor Loudon mentioned a Lithuanian article from the Center for East European Studies that makes a convincing case Russia may have started ISIS. Once again, this seems like insanity to those who are unfamiliar with dialectical strategy and KGB-inspired tactics. A number of right-leaning people wholeheartedly believe Vladimir Putin is a defender of Christianity, and that he is actively fighting against Islamic terrorism. While Putin certainly has cozy a relationship with the Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has been controlled by the KGB since the days of the early revolution. The Russian Church has been a state church since Lenin and Stalin took it over.
The KGB-inspired strategy of provokatsiya (provocation), which simply means “taking control of your enemies in secret and encouraging them to do things that discredit them and help you,” was employed, for example, to suppress Chechen nationalists and separatists during the Chechen conflict. By facilitating and strengthening jihadist elements in Chechnya, Russia could link Chechen independence with groups like al-Qaeda, and Islamic terror in general—all under the rubric of the “War on Terror.” These sort of tactics have long been employed by the Russians against internal and external opposition, going all the way back to Tsarist Russia.
An insurgency often times employs guerrilla warfare tactics—sabotage, sniping, long-range ambushes, hit-and-run, etc.—to harass and harangue a superior military force. The goal is to demoralize and slowly weaken the enemy’s resolve and will to fight … keep the enemy on their heels—”death by a thousand cuts.” But it is vital for any insurgency to win over the hearts and minds of the people. When a guerrilla movement engages in extreme acts of violence, or is seen as incompetent or corrupt, they risk losing the support of the citizenry.
What happened in the Sunni Triangle during the Iraq War is a prime example of an insurgency losing the support of the people. Al-Qaeda linked jihadis began engaging in horrific acts of violence against Iraqi citizens in areas they had taken over in central Iraq. While the Iraqi Sunnis were certainly no fans of American or coalition forces, they turned against the al-Qaeda linked groups because of their barbarism and extremism (see Enlightenment Councils).
The provokatsiya strategy directly and indirectly encourages and fosters extremism for its own ends.
When I met up with Trevor Loudon in Indianapolis back in 2013, he shared an incredulous story with me that he also mentions in this week’s installment of Update Brazil. According to Loudon, a friend of his received training at Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning during the 1980s when the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan. He had infiltrated the New Zealand Communist Party while working for New Zealand’s security services. Communists from around the world were complaining the Afghan quagmire was bad for their prestige. They were embarrassed that the mighty Soviet Union was getting beat up by a ragtag band of Afghan tribal fighters. Soviet officials in Moscow countered by saying, “Don’t worry, this is our strategy … we went into Afghanistan to lose.”
Trevor told me that the Soviets believed they needed their own “Vietnam.” As incredible as this may seem to many Americans and Westerners, the strategy is based largely on Sun Tzu’s maxim to appear weak; when, in fact, you are strong. The goal is to entice and lull the enemy into complacency. As Loudon puts it: “Russia lost in Afghanistan, but gained the disarmament of the West.” This should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied Russian history. The Soviets were more than willing to kill millions of their own people in order to forward a long-term geopolitical strategy or goal.
When it comes to the insidious influence of communism and socialism within the United States, one need look no farther than our very own president, Barack Hussein Obama. His close connections with known communists, socialists and fellow travelers are well-documented, and have been meticulously researched by the likes of Trevor Loudon, and others. Obama comes from a “pro-Soviet background,” as Trevor Loudon points out. Some of Obama’s close connections to left-wing radicals include Frank Marshall Davis (see more here), Alice Palmer, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and many others. Barack Obama has publicly admitted Frank Marshall Davis was a mentor; he had a huge influence on Obama’s worldview as a young man. This is particularly disturbing, considering Frank Marshall Davis was a hardcore communist with a 600-page FBI file. Had war ever broken out between the United States and the Soviet Union, Frank Marshall Davis was to be immediately arrested, due to the fact he was listed so high on the security index. Furthermore, Davis decided to embrace communism, even after learning of the monstrous crimes against humanity committed by the likes of Josef Stalin.
The American left, especially the liberal media, have cuddled up to the racist revolutionary “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) movement. One of the more vocal BLM activists, Deray McKesson, was just awarded a teaching position at Yale Divinity School. The Obama Administration has rolled out the red carpet (no pun intended) for the BLM activists as well. Additionally, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton recently held a meeting with BLM members. Disturbingly, people associated with “Black Lives Matter” have been working with radical elements in Moscow. BLM activists have also visited Palestine to work with Palestinian Jihad; who, in turn, are allied with the PLO—which was set up by the Soviets.
The old communist networks are still as active as they ever were. Nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the communists in Russia, and the West, no longer call themselves communists.
Hardcore Marxists and their fellow travelers long ago took over the press, media and public education in the United States, especially universities and colleges. If the unvarnished truth was ever reported regarding the insidious connections many people in government, education and the press have with the radical left, it is highly unlikely they would have ever accumulated the power and prestige they now enjoy in America. But true journalism, in the form of who, what, why, where, when and how, has now been replaced with advocacy masquerading as journalism. Trevor Loudon points to Prof Curtis D. MacDougall, who invented “advocacy journalism” in the 1940s and 1950s, as one of the main culprits in moving so many Americans toward the far-left-side of the political spectrum.
Allan L. Dos Santos, a Brazilian conservative activist and staunch anti-communist, says the Brazilian press also skews far to the left. It is interesting to note, too, that American mainstream media has imposed a virtual news blackout on the popular, non-violent uprising occurring in Brazil against their communist president, Dilma Rouseff. There have been massive protests numbering in the millions calling for the impeachment of Rouseff.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the alleged collapse of communism, the rise of left-wing regimes in South America has only increased in both strength and numbers. Brazil’s former president Luíz Inácio Lula da Silva, known as Lula, helped set up the Sao Paulo Forum, which has been instrumental in socializing a large portion of South America. (Lula served as Brazil’s president from January 2003 to January 2011.)
The above image, sponsored by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and the Labour Party (PT), celebrates the 25th anniversary of the Sao Paulo Forum, founded in 1990 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. It features portraits of socialist and communist leaders like Hugo Chavez, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Dilma Rouseff, Raul Castro, Nicolás Maduro, and others. The caption reads: “Equality, equity, social justice, sustainable development and sovereignty, signs of change in our America.”
The screencap below shows the political influence member states of the Sao Paulo Forum are having in Central and South America.
Western pundits and analysts have long attempted to paint Lula as a “moderate.” In an interview with Alek Boyd several years ago, Brazilian professor and philosopher, Olavo de Carvalho, stated the following concerning how one can reconcile the notion Lula is a so-called “moderate” when, in fact, he helped set up the Sao Paulo Forum (Foro de Sao Paulo) at Fidel Castro’s personal request:
“… The legend of Lula, as a democrat and a moderate, only holds up thanks to the suppression of the most important fact of his political biography, the foundation of the São Paulo Forum. This suppression, in some cases, is fruit of genuine ignorance; but in others, it is a premeditated cover-up. Council of Foreign Relations’ expert on Brazilian issues, Kenneth Maxwell, even got to the point of openly denying the mere existence of the Forum, being confirmed in this by another expert on the subject, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, also at a conference at the CFR. I do not need to emphasize the weight that CFR’s authority carries with opinion-makers in the United States. When such an institution denies the most proven and documented facts of the Latin American history of the last decades, few journalists will have the courage of taking the side of facts against the argument of authority carries with opinion-makers in the United States….”
In regard to Russian involvement in Central and South America, Jeff R. Nyquist points out the Russians are setting up military bases and academy structures in Nicaragua, deploying bombers and ships to Venezuela, and supporting revolution in Columbia through proxies.
Allan Dos Santos claims that both Brazilian politicians and individuals involved in the drug trade (“Red Command “) have been working together for a long time in Brazil. Dos Santos has also mentioned in previous installments of Update Brazil the heavy involvement of both Russia and China in Brazil, and the region as a whole.
Trevor Loudon believes things can change—and quickly—if we elect new leadership. There is a ground-swell of opposition at the grassroots level in both Brazil and Venezuela … and in the United States as well. But if Americans elect a Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, it might be time to start stocking up on food and building that “bomb shelter.”
Ahmed Mohamed (second from left) and Alia Salem (right), Executive Director of CAIR-Texas Dallas Fort Worth.
The brouhaha over Ahmed Mohamed’s “clock” just keeps getting “curiouser and curiouser.”
In case you haven’t heard, Ahmed Mohamed, a 14-year-old Muslim high school student from Irving, Texas, has been hailed by many in the main-stream media recently as an “ingenious tinkerer” who was allegedly “unfairly” targeted because of his religious affiliation after bringing a digital clock “invention” that looked an awful lot like an improvised explosive device (IED) enclosed in a case resembling a small briefcase.
Mohamed claims he simply wanted to bring his “invention” to school to show his teacher. The MacArthur High School teacher he originally approached with his improvised device told Ahmed that it looked a lot like a “bomb.” The teacher advised the young student not to show the contraption to any of the other teachers, lest they mistake the device for a bomb, too.
But Ahmed then brought it into his English class, plugged it in, set an alarm to go off, and did not mention to the teacher who felt “threatened” by it that he already showed it to the engineering teacher, and to ask him about it … which could have easily resolved the security concerns.
Ahmed Mohamed’s digital clock “invention.”
Ahmed was detained and the police were called, until it could be determined what sort of device Mohamed had brought to school. Reportedly, Ahmed exhibited some strange behavior during police questioning.
The Dallas-Forth Worth-based WFAA News reported (via Breitbart.com):
Officers said Ahmed was being “passive aggressive” in his answers to their questions, and didn’t have a “reasonable answer” as to what he was doing with the case. Investigators said the student told them that it was just a clock that he was messing around with. “We attempted to question the juvenile about what it was and he would simply only say it was a clock. He didn’t offer any explanation as to what it was for, why he created this device, why he brought it to school,” said James McLellan, Irving Police.
The WFAA report contradicts comments made by Ahmed Mohamed to the national media following his detention by local police. Mohamed claims he just wanted to show his “invention” to his teacher. If that is the case, why did he not reveal this claim to the police during initial questioning?
Despite it all, the ninth grader has been receiving accolades and gifts.
After his release, Mohamed became an immediate darling of the left, and received numerous internship and job offers, an invitation to visit the White House, and an Islamic prayer vigil that was held for him at his school.
A few electronic gurus and experts have been taking a closer look at Ahmed’s “invention.” Some of their conclusions regarding Mohamed’s clock are very revealing, and shed a lot of light on what Ahmed Mohamed allegedly “invented.”
This video shows that the supposed clock invention by a 14 year old is in fact not an invention. The ‘clock’ is a commercial bedside alarm clock removed from its casing. There is nothing to indicate that the clock was even assembled by the child. I suspect this was brought into school to create an alarmed reaction.
Another individual (aka “Anthony”), who claims to have an engineering degree, did his own research in an attempt to reverse-engineer Ahmed’s digital clock “invention.” Like Talbot, Anthony claims Ahmed’s clock is nothing more than the internal electronic components of a digital clock removed from its casing and stuffed into a pencil case.
Much of Anthony’s findings corroborate with Thomas Talbot’s analysis. But he goes further by stating he believes he has located the actual model and type of digital clock Ahmed used to build his “invention,” even going so far as to offer the type of pencil case observed in the official police images of Ahmed Mohamed’s “clock.”
For starters, one glance at the printed circuit board in the photo, and I knew we were looking at mid-to-late 1970s vintage electronics. Surely you’ve seen a modern circuit board, with metallic traces leading all over to the various components like an electronic spider’s web. You’ll notice right away the highly accurate spacing, straightness of the lines, consistency of the patterns. That’s because we design things on computers nowadays, and computers assist in routing these lines. Take a look at the board in Ahmed’s clock. It almost looks hand-drawn, right? That’s because it probably was. Computer aided design was in its infancy in the 70s. This is how simple, low cost items (like an alarm clock) were designed.[…] There’s also silk screening on the board. An “M” logo, “C-94” (probably, a part number – C might even stand for “clock”), and what looks like an American flag. More about that in a minute. Point for now being, a hobbyist wouldn’t silk screen logos and part numbers on their home made creation. It’s pretty safe to say already we’re looking at ’70s tech, mass produced in a factory.
So I turned to eBay, searching for vintage alarm clocks. It only took a minute to locate Ahmed’s clock. See this eBay listing, up at the time of this writing. Amhed’s clock was invented, and built, by Micronta, a Radio Shack subsidary. Catalog number 63 756.
If Thomas Talbot and “Anthony” are correct—and they do provide a convincing and dispassionate assessment—then what exactly did Ahmed Mohamed even invent? And why would he take an alarm clock and just put it in a pencil case? There is nothing at all impressive about that—besides not electrocuting himself while doing it. Removing the innards of a digital clock and stuffing it in an alleged pencil case does not require any considerable talent or skills.
And let’s not ignore the obvious: Why would you put a clock in a pencil case? Is that a particularly novel or useful “invention”? Furthermore, why did he decide to bring it to school?
There is another rather curious aspect concerning the Muslim “whiz kid” from Texas. Ahmed Mohmed is the son of Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, a Sudanese immigrant who is no stranger to making the headlines over the years.
… Aside from his presidential bids, [Mohamed Elhassan] Mohamed also made headlines for his bizarre role in Rev. Terry Jones’ incendiary Quran trial. In 2012, when the Florida pastor made good on his threat to burn a Quran in his Gainesville church and put the Quran on “trial,” Mohamed, who refers to himself as a sheik, was apparently the one Muslim willing to play along as the defense in the mock trial. “[The church] put an ad on their channel: ‘Whoever feels in himself he has the power to defend Quran is welcome,’” he told the Dallas Observer. (read more)
Interestingly, Islamic scholar and author Robert Spencer debated Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed back in 2011:
Here is video of my May 2011 debate with Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, the father of Ahmed Mohamed, the 14-year-old boy who was arrested for bringing a clock that looked like a bomb to school, in an instance of zero-tolerance overreaction or “Islamophobia,” depending on your point of view.
Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed and I debated on the topic, “Does Islam Respect Human Rights?” The results were so bad for him that after the debate, The American Muslim pleaded with Muslims not to debate me. In any case, this debate is one indication that Mohamed Elhassan has been trying for several years to make his bones as a warrior against “Islamophobia.”
The debate starts at 31:48, after an interview with Walid Phares.
Recently, the ninth grader appeared on MSNBC with Chris Hayes. Ahmed did not appear with his mother or father, or even a lawyer, but instead was accompanied by a representative from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization declared an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation and its former officials. CAIR was also designated a “terrorist organization” by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2014.
Once again, as far as the media narrative goes, it appears we are dealing with another “the facts don’t matter“ scenario—only the politically correct narrative: “if you see something, say something” … that is, unless you see a Muslim doing something suspicious … then you just best keep your damn mouth shut, you Islamophobic RAAAAACIST!
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.
Lest anyone think this is all just “conspiracy theory,” below is an excerpt from the introduction to Occidental College’s “Critical Theory and Social Justice” undergraduate program:
“‘Critical’ refers to various bodies of theory and method—Marxism, pyschoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, deconstruction, critical race studies, queer theory, feminist theory, postcolonial theory, and intersectionality—that interrogate the essentialist assumptions that underlie social identities.”
Description from one of the courses offered under Occidental College’s “Critical Theory and Social Justice” program:
By the way, Barack Obama attended Occidental College.
TRANSLATION: “Overthrow a tyrannical government with military support is good, take it down by the parliamentary route is better, take it down by sheer popular initiative is the perfection of democracy.” —Olavo de Carvalho
Terca Livre Presents – Update Brazil, Episode 2: Communist Deception, hosted by Jeff Nyquist and Allan Dos Santos. On Friday, September 18th, author and researcher Nevin Gussack talk about fake disputes and hidden levels of coordination between communist states and organizations.
Allan Dos Santos revealed some interesting developments in Brazil. According to Santos, the Brazilian Supreme Court has cleared the way for an investigation into Brazil’s Marxist president, Dilma Rouseff, and could lead to impeachment. A very large majority of Brazilians do not support the current regime. There have been huge protests against the current Brazilian regime, with some three million people taking to the streets.
Allan Dos Santos claims the Rouseff Administration is seeking the help of China and Russia, apparently in an effort to stave of the efforts at impeachment. The Brazilian vice president and head of the Brazilian senate visited China in early September, according to Santos.
Russia and China are playing an ominously large role in Brazil, and in South America in general. China is the main economic partner of Brazil. The appointed Chinese ambassador in Brazil is a Chinese general. And the commander of the Brazilian Army used to be the Brazilian embassy military attaché to China. According to Santos, in 2008, Russia and Brazil conducted a joint military exercise.
According to anti-communist activist Olavo de Carvahlo, Cuba and Russia have been helping Venezuela prop up the socialist regime. Cuban troops have been sent to Venezuela to assist Nicolás Maduro’s oppressive regime crack down on protests engulfing the nation. Russia and China are supporting Venezuela and all the surrounding South American countries involved with the communist think tank Sao Paulo Forum.
One of the more disturbing revelations made by Allan Dos Santos was the claim Brazilian universities are openly holding up North Korea as an example of “democracy.”
This video shows that the supposed clock invention by a 14 year old is in fact not an invention. The ‘clock’ is a commercial bedside alarm clock removed from its casing. There is nothing to indicate that the clock was even assembled by the child. I suspect this was brought into school to create an alarmed reaction.
The story of Russia’s El Presidente for Life (apparently), Vladimir Putin, is intriguing, to say the least. For over 15 years, Vladimir Putin has been the de facto supreme leader of the Russian Federation.
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has been the President of Russia since 7 May 2012, succeeding Dmitry Medvedev. Putin previously served as President from 2000 to 2008, and as Prime Minister of Russia from 1999 to 2000 and again from 2008 to 2012.
The people (i.e. “the family”) behind Putin’s rise to power remain in the shadows, and are a mystery to many.
At around the 43:30 min. mark is a clip of Vladimir Putin stating he will ask the Duma to “reinstate Aleksandrov’s music”—meaning, he asked the Russian Parliament to reinstate the national anthem of the Soviet Union, originally written for Josef Stalin.
One Russian political party that put its support behind Putin was known as the “Fatherland” party. An interesting twist (i.e. dialectic), considering the “former” Soviet Union has long been known as the “Motherland.”
[OBP] was formed from the movement Fatherland, chaired by the Mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, and the movement All Russia, chaired by regional Presidents of the Republics of Tatarstan, Mintimer Shaimiev, of Bashkortostan, Murtaza Rakhimov, of Ingushetia, Ruslan Aushev, and the Governor of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Yakovlev. In his founding Congress, that took place on 28 August 1999, their first chairman elected were Yevgeny Primakov and Yury Luzhkov.
The party took part in the 1999 State Duma election, being led by Yevgeny Primakov, Yury Luzhkov and Vladimir Yakovlev. During the pre-election debates, the block suffered from ‘black public relations’ campaign in Boris Berezovsky-controlled media and competition with the rival conservative Unity Party of Russia. ‘Fatherland’ supported the election of Vladimir Putin as President of Russia in 2000.
In 1 December 2001 a joint congress of rival party Unity and Fatherland-All Russia decided to merge both parties into a single new political party, United Russia. In the IV Congress of Fatherland, at 9 April 2002, it was decided to disband the organization.
Who would’ve ever thunk that the gay rights movement and the “Fatherland” have something in common?
Well, if anything, it makes for a colorful tale … does it not?
This is a rather prophetic lecture, if you ask me, by Don McAlvany on the false demise of Communism. It was recorded 25 years ago, in 1990, shortly following the fall of the Berlin Wall, which marked the beginning of the Weidervereinigung des Deutschlands (Reunification of Germany).
What I find particularly fascinating about McAlvany’s presentation are his references to KGB defector Anatoliy Golytsin’s book New Lies for Old. I have written previously (see here) about Anatoliy’s Golytsin’s startlingly accurate predictions concerning Soviet plans to deceive the West into believing Communism was dead, and that the Soviet Union was a thing of the past. Golytsin went on to write his second book entitled The Perestroika Deception in 1995.
Most of Golytsin’s predictions have proven true in hindsight. In 1984, when New Lies for Old first hit the bookshelves, Golytsin predicted that the Berlin Wall would be torn down in order to fool the West into believing that the Soviet Union was shattered. What makes Golytsin’s prediction even more eye-opening is the fact he had written the manuscript years before New Lies for Old reached publication.
The Soviets were masters at disinformation and deception. The sophistication of their subversive techniques are breathtaking in scope and audacity. Many in the West have failed to grasp the incredible lengths the Soviets and the KGB were willing to go to in order to deceive and subvert their enemies—namely, the United States and the entire Western world.
Many of the strategies and tactics employed by the Soviets—such as the dialectical and the “two steps forward, one step” back strategies—are foreign to many Western minds. But a thorough understanding of these strategies is paramount if one hopes to counter them. (You might’ve noticed I’ve switched to the present tense. I’ll get to that.)
Take the dialectical strategy, for example. Without getting into a dissertation on Marxist dialectics, the dialectical strategy entails the manipulation of friend and foe alike—playing both sides of the fence, so to speak. Communists are known for setting up “false opposition” groups in order to control and herd their opposition. Vladimir I. Lenin once said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” Leading the opposition requires infiltration, also referred to as “controlled opposition.”
Communists are willing to take “one step back” in order to “move two steps forward”; giving a false impression they are in a position of weakness; when, in fact, they are strong. Such a strategy can provide an opportunity to offer “concessions” to the enemy—but only “concessions” that provide the ability to move “two steps forward.” The goal is to goad the enemy into offering real concessions (i.e. compromise), while only offering token concessions that have no real lasting consequences on the long-range strategy of crushing the enemy.
“We advance through retreat … when we are weak, we boast of strength. and when we are strong, we feign weakness.”
The strategy of feigning weakness in order to lull the enemy into complacency is a rather Machiavellian concept; but it also is derived from the ancient Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu’s maxims on war.
… Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat…. Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline, simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness postulates strength….Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is simply a question of subdivision; concealing courage under a show of timidity presupposes a fund of latent energy; masking strength with weakness is to be effected by tactical dispositions….Thus one who is skillful at keeping the enemy on the move maintains deceitful appearances, according to which the enemy will act. He sacrifices something, that the enemy may snatch at it…. [“two steps forward, one step back”] By holding out baits, he keeps him on the march; then with a body of picked men he lies in wait for him.
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Back in February of 2014, I had the opportunity to sit down with world-renown researcher Trevor Loudon, author of the book Barack Obama and the Enemy Within. He relayed a story to me that left me incredulous, and it ties right into the whole Soviet strategy of feigning weakness.
An ex-Communist friend of Trevor’s from New Zealand actually attended Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning in Moscow. Promising members of the Communist Party, from all over the world, were sometimes offered the opportunity to travel to Russia for further training at the International Lenin Institute, where they learned things like racial agitation, trade union building, every facet of Russian history (albeit selective Russian history)—even training in explosive devices, small arms and guerrilla warfare tactics. Trevor’s friend said that a Soviet official at the Moscow institute told the students the reason the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan was that the Soviet Union needed “their own Vietnam.”
Yes, you read that correctly.
But, if you ever listen to former Soviet officials speak about the Russian experience in Afghanistan, they often times make the comparison to the U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. According to Trevor’s friend, it was all done to feign weakness and lull the West into thinking the Soviet Union wasn’t the military force they purported themselves to be. The fact of the matter is the Soviets could’ve wiped Afghanistan off the map, had they so chosen to do so.
As I drove home from my meeting with Trevor, I could scarcely believe what he had told me. But I began to ponder my own knowledge of Soviet history. The more I thought about what Trevor had told me, the less incredible it seemed.
For example, in the late 30s, the Soviet regime under Josef Stalin was systematically liquidating thousands of Russian citizens every single day. It was known as the “Great Purge.” Stalin’s depraved and blood-thirsty executioner, Lavrenti Beria, oversaw the murder of millions of Russians, and even participated on countless occasions in the executions of his own people.
After war broke out between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, there were numerous incidents of Soviet units being ordered to attack German positions and strongholds in suicidal frontal assaults that resulted in horrific casualties, often numbering in the hundreds or thousands. There are accounts of the dog tags being stripped from the dead in order to cover up the crimes of the Soviet regime. Rarely has there been an example in history of a nation that treated its own war dead with such utter contempt.
So, as I thought more and more about what Trevor had told me, it started to seem quite plausible—if not to be expected from such a morally bankrupt regime. When President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” it was not unwarranted hyperbole. For it is not possible, in words, to describe the horrors and terrors that have been visited upon the Russian people under the Soviet system—and, more than likely, are still being visited upon the Russian people … albeit not at the astonishing levels as was experienced during Stalin’s merciless and bloody reign.
As Don McAlvany points out in his lecture, there had been six periods of “glasnost” dating back to the 20s prior to 1990. During all of the so-called glasnost periods, the United States and the West were duped into believing the Soviets were changing their tune—only to watch the Soviets return to their oppressive and tyrannical ways after securing concessions from the United States. The old dialectical doctrine of “two steps forward, one step back” has proved wildly successful against the United States and its allies, helping to further the Russian strategy for international rule and subversion.
The Soviets (i.e. Communists) employ long-range strategies. Like a master chess player, they think ten steps ahead. Stalin’s henchman Lavrenti Beria said in the early 50s, “Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.” Sadly, the United States has never really formulated long-term strategic goals to counter such threats.
Golytsin predicted the Soviets would put a “happy face” on Communism by calling for “democratic reforms” in Russia, and in the former Soviet republics and Eastern Bloc countries.
Many in the West viewed the chummy meetings between Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan as a clear sign the Cold War was over, and that Soviet-style Communism had been defeated. Talk of glasnost (“openness” or “publicity”) and perestroika (i.e. restructuring, remaking, reforming, regrouping) filled the airwaves and Western press at the time.
Did Mikhail Gorbachev ever renounce Communism? Was he really a reformer who only wished to move Russia toward “democracy”?
During the 70th anniversary of the Marxist revolution [in October 1987], Gorbachev reaffirmed his country’s expansionist desires: “In October of 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a New World, the World of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”
“We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual[sic!!!]richness contained in Marxism.Through restructuring [i.e. ‘perestroika’], we want to give socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude [meaning: globally!] the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.” – “In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returnsto the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remainsthe Party of Lenin… In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” – “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to a group of Russian students, Nov. 15, 1989
“Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans, and to let them fall asleep.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, early in his tenure, speaking before the Politburo
The Party has made “specific decisions on how to update our political system”. – “Thus we shall give a fresh impetus to our revolutionary restructuring. We shall maintain our quiet [i.e. Leninist] creativity and daring in an efficient and responsible fashion in a Leninist Bolshevik manner.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking at the 27th CPSU Congress, March 1986
“Adopting a bold, realistic, mobilising and inspiring strategy, one that is Leninist in spirit, the struggle for the triumph of Communist ideals, of peace and progress, the 27th Congress of the CPSU expresses the Party’s firm determination to honourably follow our great road, and open up new vistas for the creative energy and revolutionary initiative of the… people’s intelligentsia. The Congress calls on all Soviet people to dedicate all their strength, knowledge, ability, and creative enthusiasm to the great goals of Communist construction, and to worthily continue Lenin’s victorious revolutionary cause, the cause of the October Revolution!”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress, March 6, 1986
“Perestroika is a revolutionary process for it is a leap forward in the development of socialism, in the realization of its crucial characteristics.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987
“What is meant [by the term ‘revolution from above’] is profound and essentially revolutionary changes implemented on the initiative of the authorities themselves but necessitated by objective changes in the situation. It may seem that our current perestroika could be called ‘revolution from above’. True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. I spoke frankly about it at the meeting with Party activists in Khabarovsk [already!!!] in the summer of 1986. We began at the top of the pyramid and went down to its base, as it were. Yes, the Party leadership started it. The highest Party and state bodies elaborated and adopted the program. True, perestroika is not a spontaneous but a governed process.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987
“We openly confess that we refuse the hegemonial endeavours and globalist claims of the United States. We are not pleased by some aspects of American policy and of the American Way of Life. But we respect the right of the American people, just as the right of all other peoples, to live along its own rules and laws, its own morals and inclinations.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987
“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987
“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism …”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, 1988
Many in the West are also of the belief that the KGB no longer exists. But nothing could be farther from the truth. While no longer called the KGB, the secretive security agency merely restructured (i.e. perestroika), and is now known as the FSB (Russian Federal Security Forces). The FSB is still headquartered in the infamous Lubyanka building in Moscow. The FSB is the KGB.
A little while back, I visited the official FSB website (fsb.ru). I used Google translation services to translate the pages. One link titled “Our Leaders” lists the names of such notorious figures as Felix Dzerzhinsky, Yakov Peters, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrenti Beria, Yuri Andropov … and Vladimir Putin. Remember, the official FSB website lists these individuals as their “leaders.” It doesn’t look like anything has changed to me, as far as the old KGB is concerned, except for the name.
One of the main goals of the Soviets was to eliminate NATO. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the dialectical application of their “two steps forward, one step” back strategy, Moscow hoped to gain concessions from the United States—namely, the dissolution of NATO. But the United States was resistant to the idea of breaking apart the NATO alliance. So, like the saying goes, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”—NATO, that is. Once again … infiltrate and take over from within.
“Russian membership of the Council of Europe will open up intensified new cooperation between Russia and Europe and will assist us in reaching our objectives of achieving membership of the European Union and of NATO.”
—Then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996
Perhaps one of the most important predictions Anatoliy Golytsin made was his repeated insistence that the purpose of all these subversive tactics was “the establishment of a neutral, socialist Europe” (New Lies for Old, pg. 334).
Enter the European Union.
“The collective security model … should pave the way for a gradual evolutionary synthesis of several processes: integration within the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] and the EU [European Union], strengthening and increasing the role of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, transforming NATO [and] working together to prevent or resolve conflicts.”
—Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in International Affairs, Vol. 4, #5 (1995): “Europe: Towards a New Security Model”
Of particular note in the above quote is the reference to “transforming NATO.”
For those who may still be of the opinion that talk of a “one-world government” (i.e. “new world order”) is strictly relegated to the realm of crackpots and so-called “conspiracy theorists,” consider the words of the unelected full-time President of the EU, Herman Van Rompuy, who has openly referenced the agenda for “global governance” on more than one occasion. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has referred to the European Union as a “pale version of the Soviet Union.”
In 2009, Van Rompuy said:
“2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen, is another step towards the global management of our planet.”
Van Rompuy has also stated his desire to work closely with Russia in order to further the agenda of global governance:
“By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance … to global economic governance in the G8 and the G20.”
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine shows the “Russian Bear” still has its claws. Just today there was a report Russia was reviewing the “legality” of Baltic states’ independence. The level of disinformation coming from Putin’s state-run media machine has reached fever pitch within Russia. The Russian people are being fed a steady and constant diet of hyper-nationalistic and intensely anti-American rhetoric; it resembles a war-time footing.
Ex-Communist turned vocal anti-Communist, Dr. Bella V. Dodd (1904-1969), author of the book School of Darkness, pointed out there are three concepts that are important to differentiate concerning Communism, i.e., the Communist Conspiracy (i.e. “world conspiracy”), the Communist Party (political arm), and the Communist Movement (“social action,” i.e. praxis).
At the heart of Communism lies conspiracy. In order to subvert and deceive, conspiracy is a vital and necessary component. Communists are taught to lie … the predetermined ends always justify the means. Period.
The one thing Communists and their ilk cannot withstand is their strategy and process being exposed. Communism is a form of psychological warfare (i.e. psyops) based on deception. Psyops only work if the party who is being deceived and manipulated is unaware of the tactics being employed against them. In essence, it’s a mind game. This is why it absolutely crucial to understand the dialectic process when it comes to Marxism-Leninism, if one wishes to have any success at countering such subversive and deceitful tactics.
Unfortunately, for many Americans and Westerners, it is still inconceivable that such a conspiracy is, and has been, employed against them. As one long-time and well-known researcher on Russian (i.e. Communist) strategy and tactics, J.R. Nyquist, recently wrote:
This last point is not to be made in polite society, and few are well-informed enough to know something of its validity. For 99 out of 100 persons, it is preferable to believe a lie. As a former British MP once said within my hearing; “Reagan and Thatcher saved the West from socialism.” But a former Russian GRU colonel, sitting across the table, whispered in my ear, “But America is the Marxist paradise.”
If you still find it hard to believe that the U.S.A. is already a “Marxist paradise,” and the world is moving toward global governance (i.e. worldwide socialism), I would encourage you to read the Communist Manifesto. Pay particular note to what has been referred to as the “10 planks of the Communist Manifesto” in Chapter Two. And then ask yourself, how many of these 10 points have already been implemented in the United States? I think, if you’re intellectually honest with yourself, the answer will shock you. And if it’s still too hard to digest and believe, just apply the scientific method: observe, make predictions, test your predictions, and then draw your own conclusion.
Donate to NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...