Mesmerized by the Bear: The Great Soviet Deception
By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet
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”?
Well, that depends on how one defines 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.”
Oh, and there’s plenty more of that, from where that came from (hat tip: The Contemplative Observer):
“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 returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remains the 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.
Catholic Group Exposes Red Influence in the Vatican
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
Doing the research and investigative work that the major U.S. media have all but abandoned, an organization called the American Life League (ALL) has uncovered dramatic evidence of links between the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church and an international communist group known as the World Social Forum. The evidence suggests overt Marxist influence on the climate change movement that Pope Francis and his top advisers are now embracing.
The ALL report, a 76-page PowerPoint presentation complete with original source material and numerous photographs, documents how Caritas Internationalis, the Vatican’s top social justice organization, is actually “providing leadership” to the communist group.
The report’s author, Michael Hichborn, stated, “This is a very serious problem. Given how intimately connected the World Social Forum (WSF) has been with the promotion of communism, abortion, and homosexuality since the very beginning, it’s impossible to see how any Catholic can participate in it, or even speak positively about it, let alone have any involvement in its governance. But Caritas Internationalis does!”
These allegations can’t be dismissed as anti-Catholic bigotry, since the American Life League is itself a Catholic organization that has been working for years to expose Catholic funds and organizations that promote causes at variance with official Catholic teaching.
However, Hichborn tells Accuracy in Media that except for specialized publications such as Lifesitenews, the media have ignored the report.
The ALL report on the WSF includes eye-opening photographs from the group’s events, featuring open displays of communist flags and banners as well as images of such personalities as Lenin, Castro and Mao.
Most of our media, of course, reported on the “death” of communism after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
But the ALL report notes that “There can be no mistaking the materialist and revolutionary (Communist) nature of the forum itself, which sets it in opposition to the Catholic Church.”
Hichborn told AIM that he delivered a copy of the report to the Vatican office known as Cor Unum, but that nothing came of it, and that one Vatican official concerned about the issue was relieved of his duties.
ALL identifies the other Catholic groups involved in the activities of the WSF as Pax Christi, Center of Concern, Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, Catholic Relief Services and CIDSE, an international alliance of Catholic development agencies.
An independent review of the ALL report confirms the research into the links between Caritas Internationalis and the WSF. In fact, a document on the Caritas website still affirms that “Caritas has been involved in the WSF since its beginnings. Caritas believes it’s an opportunity to exchange ideas and to build the momentum towards real change.”
After the ALL report was released, a conference at the Vatican was sponsored by Caritas Internationalis that featured Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University professor and Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and Gustavo Gutierrez, the father of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology.
As Accuracy in Media reported, Sachs wrote an article for the Jesuit publication America attacking the “American idea” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as narrow and selfish. He suggests that America’s founding document is outmoded and incompatible with his idea of Catholic teaching about social justice.
Sachs is an advocate of global taxes to extract hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people in order to finance some form of world government. The climate change movement, based on dubious science, is the most popular current vehicle that Sachs and others can use to bring this about.
Seizing on Sachs’ extraordinary remarks in a major Catholic publication, the well-known writer Edward Cline comments on the Family Security Matters website that “It would take a village—or, at least, the ‘global’ one—to subjugate and sack America. That is what is being proposed by Jeffrey Sachs.”
The Cline piece carries the title, “The ‘Sach-ing’ of America,” and he concludes that “In its essentials, Sachs’ plan for the future sacking of America differs little from Islam’s.”
In short, the American way of life is at risk, this time from a Vatican alliance with America’s academic elites and the U.N.
The World Social Forum itself just held another international conference focusing on one aspect of the Sachs agenda: global taxes. The WSF announced the launch of the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, including a statement that “Our vision entails progressive redistributive taxation polices that fund the vital public services, end inequality and poverty, address climate change and lead to sustainable development.”
The topic fits nicely with the expected papal encyclical on climate change.
At the Caritas conference, Pope Francis adviser Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga said that critics of the proposed papal document are advocates of an “ideology” that he concludes “is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits.”
Critics are concerned because of the pope’s several statements indicating hostility to the system of capitalism and free markets that has brought prosperity to hundreds of millions of people.
This kind of Marxist rhetoric from a top Vatican adviser makes it appear as if the pope has aligned himself with an ideology that, despite the “collapse” of communism, is still very much alive, and which the Black Book of Communism says has already claimed 100 million lives.
The recent cordial Francis visit with Cuban dictator Raul Castro only adds to the growing concern.
“Pope Francis will give us his encyclical letter on ecology,” said Maradiaga, anticipating its impact. “This year is a unique opportunity to take responsibility for the future of our world and the lives of future generations.”
The title of the Caritas conference was, “One Human Family, Caring for Creation.” But it appears that the “caring” part lies in replacing capitalism with structures of “global governance” that involve a massive transfer of political and economic power to international organizations like the United Nations.
After Maradiaga stepped down, he was replaced by Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila, Philippines, as the new president of Caritas Internationalis. But Maradiaga continues as the coordinator of a group of nine cardinals that serves as Francis’s Council of Cardinals.
De Blasio’s “Contract for Communism”
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Red Bill de Blasio just unveiled a 13-point national “Progressive Agenda” that is being touted as the liberal “Contract with America.” It more closely resembles a “Contract for Communism.”
And a majority of Democrats wholeheartedly approve this as the basis for the “Progressive Agenda” – the bedrock for their primary economic policies and the running platform for their anointed 2016 presidential candidate. The mask is coming off… they are going full bore Marxist/Communist and are proud of it. Members of Congress are praising de Blasio for uniting Progressives.
Rev. Al Sharpton stated that the shared goals of Progressives are more important than each individual leader’s specific opinions – how very communist of the Reverend:
“We don’t agree on everything but we agree that we have to deal with income inequality and wages and how we get there,” he said. “We can’t debate that America has to be fair for everybody. We can’t debate that the billionaires are playing games with us and treating us like hamsters on a treadmill rather than people that are focused on the goal line. We will change the debate starting today.”
Comrade Sharpton waxes poetic for the communist agenda. Is anyone surprised that the weasel who is vocally advocating for the nationalization of our police forces stands on a communist perch worthy of Lenin?
De Blasio comparing this to the Republican Party’s 1994 “Contract with America” only holds up if you consider it the very antithesis to such a political platform. But it certainly does lay bare their wealth redistribution and class realignment goals.
Aaron Klein at WND has documented that most of the 13 points in de Blasio’s “Progressive Agenda” can also be found in the manifestos and literature of the Communist Party USA and the Socialist Party USA:
Here is a comparison of the Agenda’s plan with literature from the manifestos and writings of the Community Party USA, or CPUSA, and the Socialist Party USA, or SPUSA.
• Progressive Agenda: “Raise the federal minimum wage, so that it reaches $15/hour, while indexing it to inflation.”
SPUSA: “We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.”
CPUSA: Calls for “struggles for peace, equality for the racially and nationally oppressed, equality for women job creation programs, increased minimum wage. … Even with ultra-right control of the Federal government, peoples legislative victories, such as increasing the minimum wage, can be won on an issue-by-issue basis locally, statewide, and even nationally.”
• Progressive Agenda: “Reform the National Labor Relations Act, to enhance workers’ right to organize and rebuild the middle class.”
SPUSA: “The Socialist Party stands for the right of all workers to organize, for worker control of industry through the democratic organization of the workplace.”
CPUSA: “One of the most crucial ways of increasing the strength and unity of the working class as a whole is organizing the unorganized. Working-class unity depends on uniting all the diverse sectors of the multiracial, multinational working class in the U.S. … Speeding up the organization of unorganized workers is one of the most important challenges to labor and all progressive forces.”
• Progressive Agenda: “Pass comprehensive immigration reform to grow the economy and protect against exploitation of low-wage workers.”
SPUSA: “We defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people. We oppose the imposition of any fees on those receiving amnesty. We call for full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months.”
CPUSA: Declares the “struggle for immigrant rights is a key component of the struggle for working class unity in our country today.”
• Progressive Agenda: Pass national paid sick leave. Pass national paid family leave.
CPUSA: In October 2014, hails that “women are fighting back to defend their jobs and their families against candidates who want to destroy women’s reproductive rights, health care, family leave and paid sick days. Women’s voices and votes can make the difference in this election in the U.S. Senate and House, for Governors and State Legislatures, and in the movement going forward for full equality.”
• Progressive Agenda: “Make Pre-K, after-school programs and childcare universal.”
SPUSA: “We support public child care starting from infancy, and public education starting at age three, with caregivers and teachers of young children receiving training, wages, and benefits comparable to that of teachers at every other level of the educational system.”
• Progressive Agenda: “Earned Income Tax Credit.” “Implement the ‘Buffett Rule’ so millionaires pay their fair share.”
SPUSA: “We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax. …”
CPUSA: “No taxes for workers and low and middle income people; progressive taxation of the wealthy and private corporations. …”
Eerily similar, huh? Getting a little hot in our comrade’s kitchen – in fact, hot damn!
De Blasio considers Obama “too conservative” to implement a progressive economic vision and “too afraid to take the bold kind of action that President Roosevelt took” during the Great Depression. It is widely rumored that de Blasio is considering running for president in 2016. At the very least, his agenda for New York is very clear. No way would I live in New York these days – did you know 46% of the population there lives in poverty? Of course, de Blasio blames it all on the Bloomberg administration. Bloomberg deserves a lot of blame, but if he pulled the city into ghettosville, de Blasio is tripling down on it. He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, just like Seattle. That was disastrous for Seattle by the way. And now LA has decided that they are copying this suicidal move. Looks like both coasts just can’t get enough Marxism going on. Both are racing to see who can go third-world first.
Speaking at the “Progressive Agenda” launch event, de Blasio said “something is changing in America.” Yeah and not for the better. “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference,” he said. “We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.” It’s an all-you-can-eat Marxist buffet. In attendance were politicians, union leaders and of course, race monger, Al Sharpton. In other words, the who’s who of America’s communists.
The Hill quoted Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., saying de Blasio’s plan “could be the beginning of a revolution.”
Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., commented the mayor’s plan represents “the meat on the bones of a progressive agenda.”
Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., said, “The cavalry has arrived.”
Either de Blasio is taking his communist agenda on the election trail, or he is trying to force the Hildebeast even further to the left. But honestly, it’s hard to see how she could go much further left these days.
The Atlantic reported the coalition supporting de Blasio’s plan includes Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party. Cantor was also a founder of the socialist-oriented New Party. Did you know de Blasio once served as executive director of the New York branch of the New Party? Trevor Loudon has done massive research on Obama, who was also listed in New Party literature as a member. WND did as well.
De Blasio’s plan is based on a plan crafted by a George Soros-connected professor. De Blasio’s “Progressive Agenda” was formed around a 112-page policy report at the liberal Roosevelt Institute titled, “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy.” The author is Joseph Stiglitz… the Columbia University economist who was an integral part of Occupy Wall Street. De Blasio is a big fan, which should tell you all you need to know. Stiglitz wants more government regulation of the economy.
Stiglitz previously chaired the Commission on Global Financial Issues of Socialists International, the world’s largest socialist organization. He’s also an economic adviser to Obama. His Keynesian economics are pure Marxist pablum.
Gavin Wright, chairman of Stanford’s economics department, summarized Stiglitz’s work:
“Broadly speaking, Joe’s theoretical work has had to do with the shortcomings and imperfections of market economy, not from the standpoint of a thorough-going rejection of the market economy but from the perspective that holds out hope for improvement through government regulation or use of the tax system,” Wright said.
Stiglitz was a member of President Bill Clinton’s administration, serving both in Clinton’s cabinet and as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
Stiglitz’s most important contribution during his time in the Clinton administration was helping to define a new economic philosophy called a “third way,” which called for business and government to join hands as “partners,” while recognizing government intervention could not always correct the limitations of markets.
“Third Way” is an ideology first promoted as an alternative to free markets by Mikhail Gorbachev after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The “Third Way” of governing would be neither capitalist nor communist, but something in between.
In his 1998 “State of the Union” address, President Clinton outlined the “Third Way”: “We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer. My fellow Americans, we have found a Third Way.”
The “Third Way” calls for business and government to join hands as “partners.”
Discover the Networks criticized the theory: “In short, Big Business would own the economy (as under capitalism), while Big Government would run it (as under socialism). Corporations would be persuaded to comply with government directives through subsidies, tax breaks, customized legislation, and other special privileges.”
Soros himself has been a vocal proponent of the “Third Way” economic policy.
Stiglitz, meanwhile, also became involved in “global warming” issues, including serving on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, helping to draft a new law for toxic wastes and serving on the boards of numerous environmental groups, such as the Alliance for Climate Protection.
Stiglitz is calling for a “New Global Economic Order” in which the world is “no longer dominated by one ‘superpower.’”
So you see, the communist ideals are endemic to de Blasio and his “Contract with America.”
In closing, here is the Progressive Agenda he is pushing:
Lift the Floor for Working People »
- Raise the federal minimum wage, so that it reaches $15/hour, while indexing it to inflation.
- Reform the National Labor Relations Act, to enhance workers’ right to organize and rebuild the middle class.
- Pass comprehensive immigration reform to grow the economy and protect against exploitation of low-wage workers.
- Oppose trade deals that hand more power to corporations at the expense of American jobs, workers’ rights, and the environment.
- Invest in schools, not jails– and give a second chance to those coming home from prison.
Support Working Families »
- Pass national paid sick leave.
- Pass national paid family leave.
- Make Pre-K, after-school programs and childcare universal.
- Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and protect and expand Social Security.
- Allow students to refinance student loan debt to take advantage of lower interest rates, and support debt-free college.
Tax Fairness »
- Close the carried interest loophole.
- End tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.
- Implement the “Buffett Rule” so millionaires pay their fair share.
- Close the CEO tax loophole that allows corporations to take advantage of “performance pay” write-offs.
There are many on the right pushing some of this crap too – especially Van Jones‘ ’empty the prisons’ mantra. This is a blueprint for solid communism – just say no to Red Bill de Blasio and his commie policies. His “Contract for Communism” is a road map to tyranny and the fall of the Republic.
Catholic Church Captured by “Progressive Forces”
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
Armando Valladares, Castro’s political prisoner for 22 years, said his Catholic faith was strengthened behind bars by hearing young Catholics shouting “Viva Cristo Rey,” for “Long Live Christ the King,” and “down with communism!” as they faced the firing squad. It has been his hope that Cuba would one day be free of communism. But he is far less hopeful now that Pope Francis has taken measures that he says “objectively favor the political and ecclesiastical left in Latin America” and could undermine the “Christian future of the Americas.”
Meanwhile, Marxist writer Richard Greeman has written an extraordinary article, “Catholicism: The New Communism?,” arguing that “progressive forces” have “captured” the Vatican, and that Francis is conducting a “purge” of traditional elements, such as those loyal to anti-communist Pope John Paul II.
Valladares, author of Against All Hope: A Memoir of Life in Castro’s Gulag, was the United States Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission under the Reagan and Bush administrations. He writes in a recent column that Francis was the “most eminent architect and mediator” of the Obama administration deal with Cuba that will “now provide the repressive apparatus of the Cuban regime with rivers of money and favorable publicity.”
He goes on, “We are witnessing one of the greatest examples of media sleights-of-hand in history: From a well-deserved image of aggressor, a regime which for decades spearheaded bloody revolutions in Latin America and Africa and continues to spread its tentacles in the three Americas, has been craftily made to look like a victimized underdog.”
He says the responsibility lies with the unexpected rise of a Francis-Obama “axis” in foreign affairs that benefits Marxist governments throughout Latin America.
Valladares, who received the Citizen’s Presidential Medal from President Ronald Reagan, was sentenced to 30 years in prison in communist Cuba in 1960 for being philosophically and religiously opposed to communism. He was tortured and kept in isolation for refusing to be “re-educated.” He was released after 22 years in prison, in 1982, when international pressure was brought to bear on the regime.
Valladares says it’s not just the Cuba betrayal that concerns him. He notes that Francis overturned the suspension of Nicaraguan priest Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, a former communist Sandinista foreign minister and a leading pro-Castro figure in liberation theology.
Despite his credentials as a political prisoner turned human rights activist and powerful voice for freedom, his column on the Obama-Francis “axis” has received very little attention. An associate says it seems “too politically incorrect,” an apparent reference to the fact that Francis is a global media star for identifying with the poor, and that liberals and conservatives alike are reluctant to criticize him.
Valladares, however, says the pope has gone far beyond taking up the cause of poor people. His column notes that Francis personally attended something called the World Meeting of Popular Movements last October in Rome. “It gathered 100 revolutionary world leaders, including well-known Latin American professional agitators,” Valladares points out. “The meeting turned out to be a kind of marketing ‘beatification’ of these Marxist-inspired revolutionary figures.”
One of the participants in the Vatican event was Evo Morales, the Marxist President of Bolivia who dedicated his election victory last year to Cuba’s Fidel Castro and the late Venezuelan Marxist ruler, Hugo Chávez.
The Vatican’s own description of the meeting referred to changing “an economy of exclusion” and “an idolatrous system of money.” The statement went on, “Together we want to discuss the structural causes of so much inequality (inequidad) which robs us of work (labor), housing (domus) and land (terra), which generates violence and destroys nature. We also want to face the challenge Francis himself sets puts [sic] to us with courage and intelligence: to seek radical proposals to resolve the problems of the poor.”
Valladares isn’t the only one to notice the “radical” or leftward drift of the papacy. Greeman’s article wondering if Catholicism is the “new communism” appears in New Politics, a socialist magazine “committed to the advancement of the peace and anti-intervention movements” and which “stands in opposition to all forms of imperialism…”
New Politics has strong links to the Democratic Socialists of America, a group that backed Barack Obama’s political career from the start. Its “sponsors” include Noam Chomsky, Frances Fox Piven, Michael Eric Dyson, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West and the late communist historian Howard Zinn.
Greeman notes that the world’s Catholic Bishops have “explicitly pointed to capitalism as the basic cause of impending global catastrophe,” in the form of climate change, and have “called for a new economic order.” He was referring to a group of Catholic Bishops who met at the U.N. climate talks last December and blamed “the dominant global economic system, which is a human creation,” for global warming. They argued for “a new financial and economic order” and the phasing out of the use of fossil fuels.
Greeman says the Bishops’ attack on capitalism was generally ignored, even on the left, and he understands why. There have been so many “rapid changes” coming out of Rome “since the ascension to the Throne of Saint Peter” by Pope Francis that it is hard to keep up with them, he says.
Francis will issue a Vatican document, known as an encyclical, on climate change in June or July.
Greeman writes that these “radically anti-capitalist Catholic positions” have got him wondering whether Catholicism is “the new Communism,” Rome “the new Moscow,” and the church “the new Comintern.” The term “Comintern” refers to the Communist International, an association of national communist parties started by Lenin.
Growing up as a “red diaper baby” during the Cold War, Greeman writes, Catholicism was “synonymous with militant anti-Communism.” But changes that started coming years ago in the church have been accelerating under Francis, he writes. He attributes some of this “change” to Francis, who is from Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a Jesuit, which is a “progressive” religious order whose “solid organization and discipline” and “attempts to take over the Church” go back centuries.
Greeman refers to the Catholic or “universal” Church as “the only actually existing organized world-party,” whose “vast wealth and influence are now in Francis’ hands.” He writes about “the capture” of the church by “progressive forces,” a development which opens up “huge possibilities for human liberation and perhaps a chance for the planet to avoid climate catastrophe.” He believes Francis “and his allies” are now conducting a “purge of the apparatus” in the Vatican.
Writing in Links, an international socialist journal, Canadian activist Judith Marshall discusses meeting the pope during the World Meeting of Popular Movements and witnessing his presentation to the group. “Pope Francis’ forthright statements on the social ministry of the church hearken back to the 1960s and 1970s when liberation theology was such a dynamic force in promoting struggles for social justice, particularly in Latin America,” she wrote. “The symbolism of a World Meeting of Popular Movements which brought a multitude of the poor right into [the] heart of the Vatican has not been lost on those looking for a resurgence of liberation theology.”
Liberation theology was manufactured by the old KGB to dupe Christians into supporting Marxism.
She also insisted that Francis “has arguably made the Papacy the most radical and consistent voice in pointing to the profanity of global inequality and exclusion. He has also repeatedly named the inordinate power of multinational corporations and finance capital as key factors in reproducing global poverty and destruction of the planet.”
She says Francis met with several Marxist activists from Latin America and even met privately with President Morales of Bolivia who “stressed how Mother Earth had become ill from capitalism,” and that “under the prevailing global economy, the planet would actually do better without humans—but humans need the planet.”
In a previous meeting Morales told the pope, “For me, you are brother Francis.” The pope responded, “As it should be, as it should be.”
New Zealander: Amnesty Is Obama’s Trump Card To Transform America
Hat Tip: Nelson Abdullah
By: Ginni Thomas
The Daily Caller
Libertarian New Zealander, author and founder of the popular website, KeyWiki.org, Trevor Loudon is spending a lot of time lately telling Americans that “amnesty is the trump card” for President Obama to permanently transform America.
Citing a speech in 2010 by White House consultant and radical leftist, Eliseo Medina, Loudon implores Americans to wake up before it is too late in this video interview. He says, with Mitt Romney losing to Obama in 2012 by 2 and ½ million votes, if Obama can succeed in legalizing “10, 15 or 20 million more votes, almost all of whom will vote Democrat,” Obama can lock in progressive electoral victories for the foreseeable future and “make it practically impossible for the Republicans to ever elect another president.”
As for the Republican consultants who promote Hispanic outreach and the need for amnesty for future Republican victories, Loudon asks why would anyone listen to Karl Rove, “when he has lost so many elections.” Dismissing Rove as “a fool” who “spits on his base,” Loudon believes these consultants and Republicans are doing the bidding of the business community who want cheap labor. Loudon reminds viewers of what Lenin said, “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them.”
Asking why new Latinos would be of higher value to Karl Rove and the political consultants than the 20 million conservative Christians currently not registered to vote, Loudon says Rove is demonstrating a “lack of understanding of political realities in his own country.”
Deriding those Republicans or conservatives who still write off President Obama as “incompetent,” he says this is a “power play for control with no viable opposition” reminiscent of what happened in South Africa, Venezuela and Czechoslovakia, with public deception covering up the true nature of regime change.
Although many in his country and in America may not be paying attention to politics, those foreign commentators who are, he says, are troubled by what they see happening. Loudon says, for those “thinking New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians, Brits, French and Germans, they are just freakin’ out. They are so worried. They see what Obama is doing to Israel. They see ISIS expanding in the Middle East. They see China building a big blue-water navy in the Pacific. They see Putin bullying the Ukraine, clearly wanting to reestablish his empire in Europe. They are freaking out because they have just come to the realization that they have been relying on America to defend them… when America is actually working for the other side, in many instances.”
To this self-described libertarian, Obama and his allies have set their sights on not just fundamentally transforming America, but the world. After all, Loudon says, “The world leader who was protecting us from the bad guys [America] is now helping the bad guys.”
Loudon ends with the admonition, “If America loses its Constitution, everything good about America will go. Vladimir Putin, the Chinese and the Iranians will rule the planet,” he says. “What you guys do in the next two years is going to make a huge difference to the fate of our civilization.”
WATCH PART 2:
For more on Trevor Loudon see his book, “The Enemies Within,” and his current short term crowd-sourcing fundraiser effort to produce a movie of the book by next October here.
Hatin’ on the Police – an Old Communist Strategy
By: Trevor Loudon
The second half of 2014 was marked by a very intense anti-police campaign from the US left.
In an obvious attempt to destroy public confidence in local police forces, every black death at the hands of uniformed officers was trumpeted across the nation as proof of endemic police racism.
This is an old communist game, but unfortunately not enough people know history.
Below are extracts from the testimony of Mr. Bellarmino Joe Duran, a plasticizing press operator and an FBI informant, working in the West Side Mexican Branch of the Communist Party of Denver, Colorado.
Mr. Duran was active in the Denver Communist Party from 1948 to 1956.
This testimony was given to the “Investigation of Communist activities in the Rocky Mountain area.” Hearings conducted May 15 and 16, 1956, by the COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Note what Mr. Duran has to say about the Communist Party’s campaign against the Denver police in response to government investigator Arens:
Mr. ARENS. Now may I invite your attention to an organization known as the West Side Fair Play Committee and ask you what you know about that organization.
Mr. DURAN. The West Side Fair Play Committee was an organization which to my knowledge was started in sincerity of a mother trying to defend her son against police brutality. The Communist Party of Denver heard about it and entered the case. When I heard about it Virgil Akeson, of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union was active in it. Morris Wright was active in it, Alfredo Montoya, of the Mine-Mill was active in it, Alfonso and Rose Sena were active, and Jesus and Judith Sauceda were active in it. These people I have identified before as members and leaders of the Communist Party.
In 1954-55 there was a meeting to disband ANMA (another Communist front, the National Association of Mexican-Americans). A Communist Party meeting was called. Present at this meeting were Alfredo Montoya, Martha Correa, Alfonso Sena, Morris Wright, and myself.
Immediately after that Harold Zepelin, early in 1954, instructed me as member of the Communist Party to penetrate the West Side Fair Play Committee and that I was released from my ANMA duties and therefore it would be my main responsibility directly to the party to develop the juvenile delinquency issue and fight the police in the West Side Fair Play Committee.
The directive from Harold Zepelin, and I quote him, was that it is time that the members of the Communist Party start fighting other individuals and organizations, and direct their fight against the government locally, either State or Federal. Our responsibility was to fight the Denver Police Department as part of that tactic of fighting the Government, to set the Denver Police Department against the people and the people against the police department.
The activities of the West Side Fair Play Committee were outright controlled and dictated by the Communist Party, and by that I mean this : There were people there who wanted other activities other than just juvenile delinquency and fighting against the police. They didn’t want to fight against the police. The Communists in there were less in number than the active people, but they would combine and bombard these people with their propaganda until they convinced them that they should fight the police.
In Denver, Colo., a Communist by the name of Martha Correa witnessed a policeman beating a Spanish American man. I cannot testify whether he was in the wrong or not. 1 do not know the situation.
She raised it. This man said he was wrong, and he wanted to forget about it. Later on the members of the Communist Party of Colorado convinced this man to sue Officer Burke, of the Denver Police Department for $45,000. This was continuously agitated to divide the people from their local government and specifically within the police department. That is the general activity of the West Side Fair Play Committee.
Does any of this sound familiar people?
In those days, America had two significant Marxist-Leninist parties. Now the country has at least ten.
Almost all of them have been active in the recent anti-police rioting and demonstrations. They are working overtime, right now in Black and Latino communities, to make the next wave of violence even bloodier and more destructive.
Some of them are actively working with Russian and Middle Eastern communists and Islamic radicals.
Federal, state and even city governments were once able to keep a lid on communist agitation, because they held regular public hearings which kept the public on guard against subversive activities. They also actively ran informants inside radical groups.
Now the government and the media are largely complicit with the radicals, so the public are almost completely unaware of the threat.
The next Republican administration must re-open Congressional and Senate hearings into internal subversive activities.
If they don’t, there will be significant blood on the streets. That’s a guarantee.
The Root of The Problem: Russia – Part 2
By: Glenn Beck
Below is Part 2 of the report compiled by Glenn’s research team for “The Red Storm”. Read Part 1 HERE. Part 3 will be posted Wednesday.
On December 25th 1991 the President of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev resigned his office in a nationally televised broadcast.
“I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
The Soviet Union had officially dissolved. The Soviet flag was taken down from the Kremlin and replaced with the new flag of the Russian Federation.
The Soviet Union at the height of her power had influence from the Sea of Okhotsk, across Eurasia, all the way to East Berlin. The Soviets had re-established the Russian Empire. The old Carolingian/Eastern Orthodox line was still the de facto border, but the Warsaw Pact provided the Russians with a reach into Western Europe that they had never had before. After the collapse the 3 main Slavic nations of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine were separated and millions of ethnic Russians were suddenly waking up behind foreign borders. Not only had their economy collapsed but Ukraine, their spiritual and cultural heart, was now separated by a line on the map. To Russians this was akin to an amputation.
In 2005 during his annual State of the Union address Russian President Vladimir Putin would call the collapse of the Soviet Union, “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”
When Putin came to power in 2000 he inherited a crippled economy and a nation that lacked direction. His plan was to remedy both. He started to work on the Russian economy. From 2000-2008 the Russian GDP grew by over 70%. Individual Russian wages tripled. The one aspect Russia seemed to be stagnant in was influence. While Putin was busy rebuilding the economy NATO advanced further Eastward. The United States and Western Europe practically ignored Russia on the world stage.
Putin needed a geopolitical and foreign policy that would return Russia to her glory. Just such a policy was under development. This policy was put into effect in 2008 and Putin has been following it like a playbook ever since.
I believe the architect of Russia’s geopolitical strategy is Aleksandr Dugin. If this is true the future of Western and Eastern Europe is headed toward catastrophic possibilities.
Aleksandr Dugin is known to be an advisor to some of the most influential men in Russia. The list reads like a political who’s who in the Kremlin:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
2nd Chairman of the State Duma Gennadiy Seleznyov
Minister of Culture Aleksandr Sokolov
United Russia Party Chief Ideologist Ivan Demidov
President Vladimir Putin
Not only advising the Kremlin, Dugin in 2008 became the head of the Department of Sociology of International Relations at Moscow State University. He’s been pushing his ideology to Moscows intellectual elite and young minds ever since.
Dugin’s Philosophical doctrine
Dugin uses a combination of geopolitics, political theory and philosophy to incite Russian nationalism. To put it bluntly, it’s nothing short of Russian fascism. Duginites see Eurasia as part of a greater Russian Empire. Land dominated by a superior culture and civilization.
“Everything will fall into place if we recognize Russia as a civilization. Not just a country. In other words, Russia cannot be compared with other countries, such as Switzerland, France, Germany, Belgium, England, Italy and Spain. Russia should be compared with Europe as a whole or with the Islamic world, or with the Chinese civilization.”
Marxists believed that the proletariat would awaken and become class conscious. This would bring forth the inevitable struggle between the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. Similarly, Dugin wants not only Russians but all of Europe to become aware of their race to bring forth racial struggle. This has the effect of uniting the Russians and fracturing the European Union. To do this Russia has reached out to Right-wing groups all over Europe. This is the blueprint to dismantling Western Europe.
How is Dugin awakening Russians to racial consciousness? By bringing back the significance of the Orthodox Church. Nothing stokes Russian Nationalism more. As we’ve talked about before, the Eastern Orthodox Church has been burned into the DNA of every Russian. Taking a cue from both Ivan the Great and even Stalin, the Orthodox Church is Russian Nationalism on tap.
Today if you take a guided tour of the Kremlin it’ll surprise you. You’ll skim over the government buildings in about 10 minutes. After that it’s about 2 to 3 hours touring Orthodox church after Orthodox church after Orthodox church from within the Kremlin walls. Keep in mind the people that are taking that tour. It’s primarily Russians with few foreigners. The Russian Orthodox revival is in full swing.
Dugin’s Christianity, however, is very dark. He’s preparing Russians to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice…for the nation and for Orthodoxy.
“The meaning of Russia is that through the Russian people will be realized the last thought of God, the thought of the End of the World. . . . Death is the way to immortality. Love will begin when the world ends. We must long for it, like true Christians. . . . We are uprooting the accursed Tree of Knowledge. With it will perish the Universe.”
Charming isn’t it? This man is actually an advisor to the government!
Dugin believes that Western society is attempting to dominate the entire world under one single global government. Dugin preaches that not only has the U.S. and the West manipulated the world politically and militarily but on a deeper philosophical level. Dugin says that the West has lied to the world making them think that chaos is an evil thing. He says that chaos is in fact divine. Where as the West makes you think they’re defeating chaos by bringing forth order, Dugin says Russians need to bring chaos to bring forth divine enlightenment. In fact, Dugin’s political symbol is the 8 pointed star.
The 8 pointed star is an ancient pagan magic symbol for…chaos.
This type of philosophy should sound very familiar to you if you know about twelver Islam. They believe the coming chaos will purify the world in blood bringing forth enlightenment and the 12th Imam. It’s no surprise that Putin’s Russia supports the Shia Twelver regime of Iran and their proxies Syria’s Assad and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Dugin’s geopolitics/foreign policy
Just one year after Putin became President of the Russian Federation Aleksander Dugin founded the Eurasia Party. It’s primary purpose is to advocate Russian aggression and expansion. It became a legitimate political party in 2002. In Dugin’s own words this is the Eurasia Party ethos:
“In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution. … The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.”
Dugin’s reference to Atlanticism is how he describes western sea power colonial empires like the UK, France, and the U.S. He also maintains a strong aversion to liberalism. America was founded on the concept that basic inalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are granted by God. Dugin preaches something entirely different. He claims that the state defines the man and grants him his rights. The state can act on it’s own and has complete authority.
“What man is, is not derived from himself as an individual, but from politics. It is politics that defines the man. It is the political system that gives us our shape. Moreover, the political system has an intellectual and conceptual power, as well as transformative potential without limitations”
The German historian Heinrich von Treitschke once said similar things in the late 1800’s.
“the state is power. It is free from restraints of private morality.”
Von Treitschke would pioneer decades of German racism. The end result would be Nazi Germany.
While Putin was busy fixing the Russian economy Dugin was watching the various “color revolutions” spring up all over the former Soviet bloc. They began first in Georgia and resulted in the overthrow of the Georgian President. Dugin began preaching that the West was deliberately attacking Russian society by inciting unrest. He said that the western “5th column” had infiltrated Russian lands via banks (Russian Central Bank and the IMF), NGO’s and even the government.
In 2007 the Russian’s received the springboard they needed to launch their Dugin inspired foreign policy. The U.S. and the West had gone against Russia’s demands and recognized the legitimacy of Kosovo. This obviously infuriated the Russians who were allied to Serbia. More importantly however this set a global precedent that Moscow could now exploit. Many breakaway regions within the greater “Russian civilization” could now be used as leverage over the countries they resided in. Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova, etc.
Before the Russian/Georgian war began Dugin would visit South Ossetia in Georgia and say this:
“Our troops will occupy the Georgian capital Tbilisi, the entire country, and perhaps even Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula, which is historically part of Russia, anyway. Russia should not stop at liberating South Ossetia but should move further. “We have to do something similar in Ukraine.”
Sound familiar? Putin has been on autopilot ever since.
In 2008 Putin invaded Georgia to “defend ethnic Russians” in the autonomous regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Dugin was furious that Putin didn’t seize the opportunity to go all the way to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. He called for Putin to “restore the empire” but Putin was content with biding his time. However, that all changed when the maidan protests erupted in Kiev this past year. The West had clearly stepped over a red line.
There’s something about Ukraine and Crimea that western geopolitical thinkers and analysts just don’t understand.
Putin had this to say regarding Ukraine/Crimea during his recent state of the union address:
“For Russia, Crimea, ancient Korsun, Chersonesos, Sevastopol have a great civilization and sacred significance – as well as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for those who profess Islam and Judaism. That is how we are going to treat this. Now and forever. ”
Peter the Great said it and Putin/Dugin are saying it now. They see Russia as the “Third Rome”. Ukraine and Crimea are their holy sites. The significance of such traced back to the Apostle Andrew. Vladimir I was baptised there making Kievan Rus’ a Christian state. They’re going to defend and struggle for it as if it were the Vatican or the Temple Mount.
Ukraine now finds itself in the same dark waters that Georgia does. With autonomous regions within her own borders filled with ethnic Russians supported by the Russian Federation. Used as levers that Moscow can pull at will.
The problem that Putin now faces however, is that he has awakened bears within his own country that he may not be able to chain back. The nationalist fires that Dugin’s policies have stoked burn at the core of every Russian. Fires that were ignited when the Apostle Andrew declared the coming of a great Christian city in Kiev. Moscow now faces a nation that expects nothing short of holy war over Ukraine and Crimea. What if Putin isn’t willing to take it that far? Who will take his place? Will Russia champion a new Orthodox Confederation to challenge the West? Will Western Europe’s right-wing groups be their allies in dismantling the European Union?
Why Was Putin a No-show in Paris?
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
With good reason, media attention has been focused on President Barack Obama’s curious absence from the Paris march against terrorism. Obama became a “Where’s Waldo?” character, whose whereabouts were unknown. Observers looked for him at the march of world leaders in France, hoping to spot him somewhere. But where was Russian leader Vladimir Putin? This may have been the bigger story.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a source of concern in Europe, may have been a factor in his absence. But it’s also true that Putin has documented pro-terrorist credentials that should have made him persona non grata at any such event. Instead, Putin sent Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Paris to represent his regime.
Putin was a KGB spy for many years and ran the FSB, the successor to the KGB, which trained the notorious terrorist once based in France known as Carlos the Jackal. Carlos, a name given to him because of his roots in Latin America, has been linked to communist-run international terror networks that always had an Islamic component and a strategy in the Middle East that includes the destruction of Israel.
The name “Carlos the Jackal” is well-known globally because he was the reported godfather behind such attacks as the murders of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972, and the seizure of hostages at a meeting of the oil-producing countries, known as OPEC, in Vienna in 1975. But less well-known is the international terrorist support network organized by the Soviet Union and Cuba which backed him.
President Obama may want people to believe that Russia and Cuba are no longer involved in terrorism, but hearings conducted by Congress in the 1980s, such as “The Role of Cuba in International Terrorism and Subversion,” cannot be ignored. Castro was given a role in the “Liberation of Palestine” account made by the KGB, the hearings showed, as well as promoting communism in Latin America and Africa.
Before that, in 1974, the House Committee on Internal Security produced a report, “Terrorism: A Staff Study,” analyzing Soviet, Chinese and Cuban support for international terrorism.
Today, the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) now runs the West Bank, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) continues to call Israel the “Zionist/Imperialist Project,” a typical Soviet term.
Tragically, the Senate and House committees or subcommittees on security and terrorism were dismantled and there is no such body in Congress today that specifically examines international terrorist activity and its U.S. support networks.
Former KGB officers and intelligence analysts say the PLO was created by the Soviet KGB, and that the PLO’s long-time chairman, Yasser Arafat, was an agent of the Soviet intelligence service.
Indeed, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking defector from the former Soviet bloc, says KGB dissident Alexander Litvinenko, who was living in London, was killed by the KGB because he spilled the beans on how Soviet intelligence spawned Islamic terrorism and trained al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
But there is another fascinating aspect to the story that brings this matter up to date. Although a Marxist terrorist for much of his life, Carlos converted to Islam and is now serving a life sentence in a prison in France. He announced in 2003 that he had pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden.
While Obama seems preoccupied with the rights of terrorists and whether they are being treated properly, French Special Forces kidnapped Carlos in Sudan in 1994 using a practice known as “rendition,” a practice used by the Bush administration against terrorists that has only reluctantly been embraced by the Obama administration.
In what Obama might describe as a violation of his terrorist “rights,” Carlos was reportedly injected with a tranquilizer, bound, stuffed into a sack, and transferred to France, where he was put on trial, convicted of murder, and sentenced to life in prison.
Putin, in response to the Charlie Hedbo massacre, said through a spokesman, “Moscow strongly condemns terrorism in all its manifestations,” adding, “Moscow is sure that no terrorist acts can be justified.”
Moscow’s words need to be “parsed,” as the saying goes.
The American author Claire Sterling’s 1981 book, The Terror Network: The Secret War of International Terrorism, still stands as the authoritative analysis of the international terror networks that emerged in the late 1960s under the sponsorship of Russia and Cuba. Carlos was a key Soviet KGB operative in this effort.
Sterling identifies Carlos as someone who was under KGB control and running a terror network directly out of Paris in 1974 and 1975. He killed two French agents who tried to capture him and fled France, moving around in various Arab countries and what was then East Germany, where a young KGB spy by the name of Vladimir Putin would be based. Carlos continued carrying out attacks in France and other nations through his terror network.
Carlos was born in Venezuela as Ilich Ramirez Sanchez. His first name was given by his Marxist parents as a tribute to Soviet communist leader Vladimir Ilych Lenin. Carlos “studied” at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, notes Jill Dougherty, once CNN’s Moscow Bureau Chief.
In fact, according to former KGB officers, the “university” was essentially run by the KGB, which used it to recruit foreign students as agents or terrorists.
The authoritative Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, which was published in France, states categorically that Carlos worked for the KGB, carrying out terrorist activities on its behalf.
Carlos also “studied” at the Tricontinental Conference in Havana in 1966. A conference of this kind and scope, Sterling wrote, “had never been seen since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and the world would never be the same.” She noted that its “General Declaration” urged close collaboration between the Soviet-style “Socialist countries” and the “national liberation movements,” in order to mount “a global revolutionary strategy” against “American imperialism.”
This is the strategy that resulted in hundreds of acts of terrorism across Europe and in the United States through such groups as the Weather Underground and the Puerto Rican FALN.
Numerous reports put Carlos at the KGB-supervised Cuban terrorist training camp known as Mantanzas, where he “studied” guerrilla warfare, sabotage techniques and bomb-making.
Former KGB agents, including Alexander Litvinenko and Konstantin Preobrazhensky, confirmed published accounts that Carlos was in fact an agent of the KGB. The 1991 book, KGB: The Inside Story, by Christopher Andrew and former KGB officer Oleg Gordievsky, also confirms his terrorist training by the Soviets and Cubans.
Interestingly, when a TV movie was aired in 2010 about Carlos the terrorist, the Kremlin propaganda channel Russia Today (RT) ran a story saying his KGB connections were murky and had been “questioned” by the movie director. However, the director of the film did say, “He (Carlos) grew up in a Marxist family in Venezuela; his parents sent him to Lumumba University in Moscow; then he was expelled from the university for bad behavior. Then he re-emerges with a gun in his hand in Jordan at the side of the Palestinian from the PFLP, led by Wadih Haddad, who was a KGB agent. So what exactly were the KGB connections of Carlos? It’s a very difficult subject.”
The director was quoted as saying, “it is debatable whether Carlos the Jackal, a supporter of radical Islamism, had KGB connections.”
Such a claim only makes sense from the perspective of a network that serves Putin’s propaganda interests and wants to distance Moscow from the carnage the Soviets inflicted, with the collaboration of the Cuban communists, on Europe and the United States.
The KGB connections of Carlos went far beyond the PFLP. What’s more, the late Herbert Romerstein, an expert on security and terrorism, had noted that the “expulsion” from Lumumba University was a diversion. He said that Carlos had left Moscow with a letter of introduction from a representative of the PFLP stationed in Moscow, and had joined that Soviet-backed Arab terrorist organization.
Carlos is in prison, but Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the PLO, has a similar background. . Abbas, who is also president of the Palestinian Authority, did his Ph.D. work at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University, where he wrote a report claiming that there was no Holocaust, and that the Jews murdered during World War II were actually killed by Zionists working with the Nazis.
The Obama and Putin no-shows in Paris were eclipsed by the attendance of Abbas, who is now seen internationally as someone opposed to the terrorism his organization has sponsored and carried out for decades. It was a clever propaganda display that Putin must have enjoyed.
From Lenin to Obama
Alexander G. Markovsky is a Russian émigré who holds degrees in economics and political science from the “University of Marxism-Leninism” and an MS in structural engineering from Moscow University and now lives in Houston, Texas. His recent article, “From Lenin to Obama,” argues that Obama is acting like Lenin who declared, “Our task, is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilize every grain of rudimentary protest.” Markovsky is the author of “Anatomy of a Bolshevik” and his forthcoming book is titled “Liberal Bolshevism,” with the subtitle, “America Did not Defeat Bolshevism, She Adopted It.”
TV Show on Obama’s Use of the Marxist Dialectic
Dear Friend of America’s Survival, Inc.:
Republicans like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk “compromise,” while Obama is on the attack. He has threatened to veto the Keystone XL bill backed by 63 Senators. At the same time, the White House is threatening to veto an Obamacare reform bill defining the full-time work week as 40 hours. As the Daily Caller noted, “That would decrease the number of workers caught by Obamacare’s employer mandate, which the administration is just beginning to implement this year.” Meanwhile, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee had scheduled a hearing on the Keystone bill for Wednesday morning, and a markup of the bill for Thursday morning. But Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected to the hearing and postponed it. All of a sudden, obstruction is a good thing – when Democrats do it.
Do the Republicans understand who they’re dealing with? Do they understand Obama is a Marxist who can’t be reasoned with?
Our guest on America’s Survival TV tonight is Alexander G. Markovsky, a Russian émigré who holds degrees in economics and political science from the University of Marxism-Leninism and an MS in structural engineering from Moscow University. He now lives in Houston, Texas, and is a contributor to FamilySecurityMatters.org, and his essays have appeared on RedState.com, WorldNetDaily and Family Security Matters. His recent article “From Lenin to Obama,” argues that Obama is acting like Lenin who declared, “Our task, is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilize every grain of rudimentary protest.” Markovsky is the author of “Anatomy of a Bolshevik” and his forthcoming book is titled “Liberal Bolshevism,” with the subtitle, “America Did not Defeat Bolshevism, She Adopted It.”
Watch on Roku tonight at 9:00 pm Eastern or click here to watch over the Internet at that time.
For America’s Survival,
Cliff Kincaid, President