Jeff Nyquist kindly responded to my previous article with splendid divagations around the importance of common usage when confronted with soviet strategy.
It seems to me that our recent exchange [1] opened up three wide areas of disagreement. First is focused on semantics but, as I see it now, the difference between us is much [...]

1. It was drawn to our attention that some of the comments placed here in the last few days did not meet the high standards usually expected of our contributors. Statement to the effect that terms “Russian” and “communist” are synonymous, is below contempt. This is as ridiculous as identifying the terms “Nazi” [...]

To give a more complete answer to Mr. Bąkowski, I should like to address the apparent inconsistency of my “apology,” where I admit the use of the word “Russia” in place of the word “Soviet,” and end by admitting that this usage is integral to the enemy’s semantic liquidation of anti-communism. Mr. Bąkowski supposes that [...]

Jeff Nyquist was kind enough to respond to my previous article. He even offered me a mock apology. Notwithstanding that, I will treat his polemic with utmost seriousness. To my insistence that an anticommunist ought to differentiate between the sinister soviet power and “Russia”, Nyquist replied:
“The Soviet Union is no longer the [...]

Response to Michał Bąkowski
In answer to Michał Bąkowski’s criticism, I offer the following apology. Yes, I am guilty of referring to the Soviet Union as Russia and Russia as Soviet. Up until 1991 common usage permitted this. It is not entirely correct, of course, and if I were compelled to use only immaculate and scientific [...]