Publikujemy poniżej odpowiedź Jeffa Nyquista na artykuł Michała Bąkowskiego pt. Poland as a front line state?, który ukazał się 30 listopada wyłącznie na angielskiej wersji naszej witryny. Nie tłumaczymy tego artykułu, ponieważ wszystkie jego tezy znane są polskiemu czytelnikowi z poprzednich publikacji na stronie Wydawnictwa Podziemnego.
W odpowiedzi Michałowi Bąkowskiemu
Odpowiadając na krytykę ze strony Michała Bąkowskiego, muszę prosić o wybaczenie. Tak, przyznaję się do winy, piszę o Związku Sowieckim jako Rosji i odwrotnie, mając na myśli Rosję piszę Sowiety. Aż do 1991 roku taka praktyka była w powszechnym użyciu. Oczywiście, nie jest ona całkowicie poprawna, niemniej gdybym miał stosować wyłącznie nieskazitelny, naukowy język, w ogóle nie mógłbym sformułować żadnej wypowiedzi, ponieważ w obszarze zagadnień, o których tu mówimy, precyzyjny i naukowy język nie istnieje. Tematyka polityczna zawsze dopuszczała stosowanie pewnych ogólnych terminów i skrótów myślowych, takich jak „demokracja” czy „wolność”. Zakłada się ogólnie, że wiemy jakie znaczenie kryje się pod tymi słowami. Tyle że ogólne założenia często bywają mylne. Przytoczmy przykładowe pytania: co to jest „demokracja”? Co to jest „wolność”? Nie ma precyzyjnej odpowiedzi, a ludzie próbujący odpowiedzieć na tak postawione pytanie popadają w niezgodę. Ktoś może także zapytać: co to jest totalitaryzm? I czym jest w tym kontekście Rosja – w jaki sposób w ogóle opisujemy kraj, władzę, rząd? Czy określamy rosyjski rząd jako „Kreml”? Ale przecież Kreml to tylko cytadela. Czy mówimy, za Władimirem Bukowskim, że Rosja jest rządzona przez KGB? A co w takim razie z rosyjską armią, ze Sztabem Generalnym, GRU, Ministerstwem Spraw Wewnętrznych, z czerwoną mafią oraz tymi wszystkimi tajnymi, wszechmocnymi strukturami, które tworzą dzisiaj „podziemie” Komunistycznej Partii Związku Sowieckiego? Znajdujemy całą orkiestrę, choć Bukowski skupia swoją uwagę na pierwszym skrzypku. Dezerter z KGB, Anatolij Golicyn, powiedział nam 25 lat temu, jakiego gatunku muzykę zamierza grać ta orkiestra. Powiedział nam jaką rolę zamierza odegrać dyrygent. Powiedział także, że celem dyrygenta jest komunizm.
W odniesieniu do systematyki rodzajów, poszczególne sekcje tej orkiestry łączą trzy sprawy: po pierwsze, wszyscy oni mówią po rosyjsku i są kojarzeni z Rosją; po drugie, zostali stworzeni w Związku Sowieckim; po trzecie, ich broń i bunkry są w Rosji. A jednak p. Bąkowski zaprzecza jakoby orkiestra była rosyjska; woli termin „sowiecki”, mimo że przeciętny czytelnik będzie się wahał czy taką terminologię zaakceptować, ponieważ Związek Sowiecki przestał istnieć w 1991 roku; nasze lingwistyczne problemy nie zostaną złagodzone, jeśli zastosujemy termin „komunista”, pomimo że jest to termin właściwy. W odniesieniu do różnic międzygatunkowych, to prawda, że pierwszy skrzypek odgrywa główną rolę, podczas gdy perkusiści i basiści na tyłach orkiestry podążają jedynie za partyturą, z nowymi rakietami, głowicami nuklearnymi i łodziami podwodnymi; Sztab Generalny nadal koordynuje swoje działania z „bratnimi krajami socjalistycznymi” i „ruchami narodowo-wyzwoleńczymi”, przygotowuje się do szkolenia kubańskiej armii, wysyła broń do Wenezueli i Chin, układa plany przyszłej wojny; GRU obserwuje proces zanikania amerykańskiego arsenału strategicznego, wskazuje na cele możliwe do osiągnięcia? MSW utrzymuje porządek w domu; MSZ dostarcza przykrywki dyplomatycznej, organizując rozmowy o redukcji zbrojeń, integrując struktury komunistyczne w struktury Zachodu itd.
To jest czerwona orkiestra, formacja komunistyczna. Jej celem jest światowa dominacja, a główną przeszkodą na tej drodze – Stany Zjednoczone. Ale nie na długo, ponieważ Ameryka się rozbraja. Jeśli ktokolwiek sądzi, że Ameryka nie pozbędzie się broni, myli się, niestety. Już dzisiaj strategiczna sytuacja Stanów Zjednoczonych wręcz zachęca do nuklearnego pierwszego uderzenia. Taką opinię usłyszałem z pierwszej ręki od jednego z najważniejszych amerykańskich nuklearnych strategów w czerwcu. Był zrozpaczony. Wyrzucał z siebie tę historię jak człowiek, który musi się przed kimś wyżalić. Oczywiście, pozycja Ameryki nie jest przypadkiem. Nie powinniśmy być także zdziwieni, że Kongres Stanów Zjednoczonych, z rządzącymi tam obecnie Demokratami, nie zaaprobuje programu wymiany głowic nuklearnych. Prezydent Obama także odmówił wsparcia dla tego programu, pomimo że Sekretarz Obrony, Robert Gates, twierdzi, że zbliża się termin ważności dla całego amerykańskiego arsenału nuklearnego.
Kiedy rozumie się naturę komunizmu oraz naturę potężnego bloku związanego z komunizmem, wówczas pojąć można powagę nadciągającego kryzysu. Wyjaśniwszy to wszystko w odpowiedzi na krytykę ze strony pana Bąkowskiego, pragnę wyrazić następującą opinię: pan Bąkowski widzi i ocenia świat takim jakim jest w tej chwili. Być może jednak powinien to robić w oparciu o to co nadciąga, co jest nie do uniknięcia. Kiedy mówię, że Polska jest krajem na pierwszej linii frontu, mówię o dniu, gdy Europa nie będzie już dłużej chodzić o kulach – do tej chwili takimi kulami dla Europy jest Ameryka. Rosyjscy komuniści sądzą, że Europa będzie należała do nich, że Unia Europejska będzie odgrywać rolę europejskiego sowietu. Według mnie niewłaściwie oceniają Europę, ponieważ z ich strategią związane są pewne nieuchronne konsekwencje. Przede wszystkim upadek światowej gospodarki przyniesie rewolucję całkowicie niepodobną do tej przewidywanej przez Karola Marksa. Ale nie tylko to: sowieccy stratedzy zasiali wiatr i będą zbierać burzę. Podstęp z roku 1989 uruchomił psychologiczny proces, którego nie powstrzymają żadne zabiegi polityczne. Nie wiem na czym dokładnie polega ta przemiana. Ale wierzę, że będziemy mieli do czynienia z nowym gatunkiem rozumienia polityki, którego początkiem będą tragiczne wydarzenia w Ameryce, i proces ten rozprzestrzeni się niczym infekcja w Europie. Rozmyślam o tym od wielu lat, dostrzegając różne aspekty, zastanawiając się jednocześnie nad losem mojego własnego kraju. Spróbujmy wyobrazić sobie zwrot, w którym najpotężniejsze państwo na świecie, bodaj najbogatsze, najbardziej rozwinięte, najbardziej humanitarne, jest nagle pozbawione pewności siebie i zniszczone. Takie wydarzenie musi spowodować zmiany w zbiorowej psychice ludzkości, spowodować pojawienie się nowego kompleksu idei, które zepchną na dalszy plan wszystkie nieistotne sprawy, łącznie z dbałością o własne przetrwanie. Przewiduję, że nastąpi duchowy przełom, objawienie: moment, kiedy dusza podda się religijnej przemianie (albo czemuś podobnemu).
Pewien mądry człowiek powiedział kiedyś: „Nigdy nie formułuj prognoz, szczególnie na temat przyszłości”. To zatem, co już wam powiedziałem oraz to do czego się odnoszę, powinno być traktowane jedynie jako inspiracja do dalszych rozmyślań. W żadnym wypadku nie jako proroctwo. W marcu 1987 roku czytałem autobiografię Jana Sejny, najwyższego rangą komunistycznego dezertera, który pisał o planach Moskwy zorganizowania fałszywego upadku Układu Warszawskiego. Zdałem sobie natychmiast sprawę, że pisał o tej samej długofalowej strategii, o której wcześniej wspominał Golicyn w „Nowe kłamstwa w miejsce starych”. Kilka skojarzeń z miejsca przyszło mi na myśl. Odrzuciłem uprzednio książkę Golicyna jako rodzaj strategicznej fikcji. Nagle zdałem sobie sprawę, że Golicyn i Sejna opisywali to samo zjawisko i że, w związku z tym, to zjawisko było realne; co więcej, zdałem sobie sprawę z faktu, że amerykańscy politycy to ignoranci. Istotnie, z jednym czy z dwoma wyjątkami, opracowania na temat Związku Sowieckiego i sowieckiej strategii były kompletną farsą. Nie mogło być żadnych wątpliwości: nadchodził upadek Związku Sowieckiego, a eksperci i mędrcy nie mieli pojęcia o tym co się dzieje. W konsekwencji Stany Zjednoczone miały pozbyć się tysięcy sztuk broni nuklearnej ze swojego arsenału i opuścić gardę.
W sierpniu 1987 roku rozpocząłem intensywne zbieranie materiałów, które trwać miało cztery lata, a efektem tych wysiłków była książka, opublikowana później pod tytułem „Geneza IV wojny światowej”. Książka ma wiele wad, ale musi być rozumiana jako zbiór równań i formuł, jako próba określenia przyszłości na podstawie ograniczonych informacji i przemyśleń, którymi dysponowałem w tamtym czasie. Wartość tej pracy polega na całkowitym odrzuceniu myślenia życzeniowego. Pracując na książką, doszedłem do przekonania, że oferowanie jakiegokolwiek klarownego rozwiązania byłoby w tej sytuacji niestosowne. Obowiązkowy happy end byłby w tym przypadku nieuczciwy. Żałosny amerykański zwyczaj, wedle którego każdy problem musi mieć swoje rozwiązanie, a autorzy nigdy nie powinni podnosić problemu, jeśli nie dysponują gotowym rozstrzygnięciem, jest tylko kolejnym dowodem, że czytanie i pisanie stały się w naszych czasach jeszcze jedną czynnością pozbawioną treści. Zrozumiałem jedno: że rozwiązanie przyjdzie wraz z agonią, poprzez nieustanne obcowanie ze śmiercią, w rzece łez i oceanie krwi. Temu, kto uważa, że tak nie jest, proponuję lekturę Francisa Fukuyamy. W jego książce, „The End of History and the Last Man”, znajdujemy poniżające widowisko. W skrócie, dostajemy wszystko czego chcemy, mimo że za to nie zapłaciliśmy. Fukuyama sugeruje, że liberalna demokracja jest kwintesencją i zwieńczeniem procesu historycznego. Historia się dokonała i nadszedł czas permanentnego pokoju. Fukuyama niezgrabnie zaprzecza twierdzeniu Nietzschego, który uważał, że idea demokracji jest złowieszcza, jeśli nie deprawująca.
To co piszę jest ostrzeżeniem dla tych wszystkich, którzy sądzą, że obecny względny spokój jest niezmienny. Heraklit powiedział, że nie można dwa razy wejść do tej samej rzeki. Codziennie każda rzecz ulega przemianie. Ameryka nie jest już tym czym była kiedyś. Związek Sowiecki nie jest już tym samym Związkiem Sowieckim. Polska nie jest tą samą Polską. Czy rozumiecie co to znaczy? Nie ma ostatecznej formy politycznej. Tak samo jak nie ma ostatecznego zwycięstwa, czy ostatecznej klęski. Który naród spośród wszystkich narodów świata może łatwiej zrozumieć tę prawdę aniżeli Polacy? I które europejskie państwo opublikowało oficjalnie „Nowe kłamstwa w miejsce starych” Golicyna jako podręcznik kontrwywiadu? Proszę nie wątpić we własny kraj, panie Bąkowski. Coś się zaczyna dziać w Polsce, na Ukrainie, w Gruzji, w państwach bałtyckich. Dotychczasowe klęski nie powinny mieć znaczenia. Proszę nie lekceważyć skromnych początków. Czy pan wie, że ukraiński prezydent nie pojedzie do Moskwy? A rosyjskie czołgi wycofały się po zaatakowaniu Gruzji? Nawet bardzo mały cud jest już cudem, o wy, małej wiary!
Nie powinniśmy trzymać się kurczowo poszczególnych słów. Wspomniałem wcześniej słowo demokracja. To durne słowo, obrosłe w nieporozumienia. Czyż niczego nie nauczyliśmy się od komunistów? Opinia publiczna jest kapryśna i ciągle się zmienia. O wiele ważniejsze jest zdobycie uznania kilku roztropnych ludzi aniżeli poklask ogłupiałej większości. Obawiam się, że przegraliśmy wojnę przez nasz własny egalitaryzm. Czy zrozumieliśmy tę lekcję? Od początku do końca antykomuniści pozwolili komunistom stworzyć i zdefiniować większość słów używanych w trakcie zimnej wojny. Kiedy komuniści oficjalnie wycofali się ze stosowania tych słów, ludzie zaczęli mówić o „końcu zimnej wojny”. Antykomuniści uznali to za zwycięstwo. W rzeczywistości antykomuniści zostali semantycznie usunięci z gry. Bezmyślny tłum jest tak bardzo przywiązany do słów, że wyeliminowanie z użycia pewnych słów skutecznie neutralizuje bądź wyklucza oponentów. Nazywam tę metodę „semantyczną likwidacją” opozycji. Nieprzypadkowo Stalin u kresu swojego życia zaczął interesować się semantyką.
Clausewitz napisał kiedyś, że podczas wojny najprostsza akcja jest bardzo trudna. W obecnej wojnie nasze perspektywy nie wyglądają zbyt obiecująco. Straciliśmy przewagę, nasi bohaterowie zostali zabici, żołnierze zdemoralizowani. Ale klęski nie muszą trwać w nieskończoność. Co więcej, klęski prowadzą do zwycięstwa, do zmiany ludzkiej świadomości, do odkupienia. Nastąpi kolejny przełom, nadejdzie nowy świt. Nasi wrogowie wyznają wstrętną i zużytą ideę. Wierzą, że ich sprawa jest sprawą ostateczną.
My nie jesteśmy tacy płytcy.
Prześlij znajomemu
Well, mr Nyquist I thought You can no longer surprise me because I follow your work so close for several years already
i was wrong, this is a great piece of work.
May I suggest that it is also important to remind the readers that this particular President of Ukraine who refused to go to Moscow after kremlin cannibals killed hundreds of Georgians in 2008
is Victor Yushchenko.
I foresee that your work Mr Jeff will be important reading not only for today but for the years to come. As far as who will be the president of Ukraine- I am not sure at the moment, unfortunately.
God Bless You Jeff.
This article left me breathless. Great great writing.
If only a few Americans would read your work and have the courage to contemplate how we are like sheep! Your use of the words, „wishful thinking” is so appropriate as this is how I believe our leadership has patched together our foreign policy. Americans deal so often in absolutes, black or white, and good and bad. Unfortunately the world does not conform to our brain’s desire and need to have simple equation-like answers to each problem.
I believe this is why we have such a tremendous problem dealing with the Middle East. It is impossible for our President to believe that sovereign countries could be an ally one moment only to send terrorists to our soil the next, while smiling and denying it. In addition I believe we a fundamental attitude in our ranks now that America is bad and responsible for much of the world’s trouble.
I’m not sure our President and his team has the capacity to understand that we have enemies everywhere in the world and they want a total collapse of our country. It is easier to look at the Middle East and apologize and hope that it makes things better rather than wake up and understand that there are ideological and religious differences that are concrete, unchanging, and zealously committed to the destruction of America and what it stands for.
I think your President has the capacity to understand, I’m less convinced he wants to. If I am not mistaken, Jeff Nyquist is saying that your President – together with his considerable abilities – is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
„Public opinion is fickle, and constantly changes.”
But not of its own accord, and the changes are typically minor and do not disturb the status quo. Public opinion is shaped and developed over long periods of time. Educational systems (I use the term „educational” loosely here) are designed to develop an adaptable mass society to those who direct public opinion (and action) through academia, mass media, and a constant barrage of sub-surface propaganda.
Actual learning, actual independent-thinking skills, are not part of the program.
Hence, I hear frequently the phrase „Communism poses no threat.” Or, „Islam is a religion of peace.” And on and on it goes.
It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to recognize there are serious problems with communism (and Islam). But the machine in-place to marginalize these realities is pervasive and powerful.
Which is why I agree with you, Jeff, that the solution (if indeed one is found) will be through agony. I appreciate your ultimate hopefulness and belief in the spirit of free people to one day conquer this pathological ideology of communism.
Public opinion cannot be fickle of its own accord because it possesses no will of its own. In fact, what we refer to as “public opinion” is merely an opinion of some individuals, repeated by the “thoughtless multitude” parrot fashion. “Educational systems”, which are “designed to develop an adaptable mass society” are not worthy of the name in the loosest possible sense – they are no more than totalitarian tools of subjugation of the individual.
At least we can hone our independent thinking skills and expand our learning in The Underground.
„Heraclitus said, you cannot walk into the same river twice. From day to day, a thing is not itself. America is no longer what it once was. The Soviet Union is no longer the Soviet Union. Poland is no longer Poland. Do you understand what this means? There is no final political form.”
Regarding educational systems, public opinion and propaganda, these are also „not what they once were.”
The mass media propaganda machine in the United States of America is so highly-developed and permeates so much of „normal, everyday life” that it is virtually unnoticeable in its overwhelming totality. To shift an entire culture, slowly – over a period of decades – now that is impressive.
Whether President Obama is a victim of this propaganda, or one who sits in the inner ring of those who decide in which way America must be „shifted” – I cannot determine. Maybe a little of both.
Michal, I agree with you when you say the „educational systems” are „no more than totalitarian tools of subjugation of the individual.”
There is a weakness and a softness being injected into American children, from preschool through college, and this cannot be overturned quickly.
(Though I suppose WWIII might quickly toughen us all up a bit. Jeff’s analysis is pretty bullet-proof. I hope he is wrong, though – I would like my children to grow up with the experience of America that I had. Instead they will probably all end up in the infantry.)
Obama seems to me to be a „product” of an intensive campaign rather than a victim of propaganda.
I agree that a slow slide of an entire culture into oblivion over a long period of time is impressive. But I find it difficult to weep for people who simply slide without any effort to halt it. Józef Mackiewicz, the greatest anticommunist of the last century, once noted that the progress of communism should not be observed under the soviet rule, where torture chambers, tanks and riot police distorted the picture. Instead it should be analysed in the West, where free people of their own free will slide into the quagmire of sovietisation.
„But I find it difficult to weep for people who simply slide without any effort to halt it. Józef Mackiewicz, the greatest anticommunist of the last century, once noted that the progress of communism should not be observed under the soviet rule, where torture chambers, tanks and riot police distorted the picture. Instead it should be analysed in the West, where free people of their own free will slide into the quagmire of sovietisation.”
As an American, what is to be done? When a car begins to roll very slowly down a gradual hill, because someone forgot to set the handbrake, a strong person can jump behind and hold it in place until someone can correct the problem.
In America’s case, the car has been rolling down the hill and gaining speed for decades. The time to stop the American decline was decades ago – and there were indeed people who tried – but they failed and they were overpowered.
What is to be done? I home-school my children. I don’t have television. We try to be good Christian parents. We teach them self-sufficiency. We even train with firearms as a family (a last recourse but a valuable skill nonetheless).
None of this will arrest the decline; not in time for the car to slam into the rocks at the bottom of the hill.
What is to be done? I have no faith in the American government system anymore. It is too corrupt and infiltrated.
Dear Eric,
Strangely, I agree with all the above (I very rarely do). You are right to say, that when any community is bound on self-destruction, there is not much an individual could do to stop it. But, if I may paraphrase Mackiewicz again, people could still be free even when they’re conquered but not when they accept enslavement.
„Nothing to be done”, says Estragon in „Waiting for Godot”. That may very well be the case in existential terms. But in political terms this is suicide. Before you ask, I don’t have an answer to your question.
I agree with almost all Jeff’s writing. Anyway, as a Pole living in my country, I can hardly notice a serious reason to substantiate his original thesis of front-lined Poland to be busy to transform itself into some good and new quality to perform (together with Ukraine and the Baltic States) as a role player. To say nothing about its possible role as a trigger, a fuse or some positive factor of the change.
What is like taking shape in Poland, in Ukraine or in the Baltic States, please? Something to give us a good hope? I say: nothing at all!
Corrupted states, power elites rotten to the core, devastated societies (if we believe these structures to be societies at all), flimsy both national and historical identities complete a picture of dangerous (and perhaps definitive, irreversible, I am afraid) political and mental collapse in Central and East Europe.
Mr. Yushchenko and other cynical opportunists like him as the announcement of changes? No kidding, please.
I do despair of my country, Jeff. Yes I do. But my despair seems to be deeply justified as opposed to some premature geopolitical hopes.
I have to say that my heart sunk when I read about Yushshenko NOT going to Moscow as a sign of hope. If Jeff Nyquist, of all people, says things like that, then I wonder if there’s any hope at all. Commies have known for decades how to manipulate their opponents by creating false splits, by ostensibly disagreeing with some of their closest allies. The pattern of such deception can be seen in October 1956 and in Gomułka’s coming to power.
One thing I cannot agree, though. Nothing in human affairs is ever irreversible. It may never be reversed but that is not the same as being irreversible. One of the strongest tools of sovietisation is the emphasis of the irreversability of changes because once we accept that a change cannot be undone it almost becomes irreversible.
Eric,
The time to stop the American decline was decades ago – and there were indeed people who tried – but they failed and they were overpowered.
You shouldn’t confuse America’s decline with freedom’s decline. I know that it is difficult for a patriot (from any country) not to equate his country’s best interest with humanity’s best interests, but they are not the same.
I would prefer a capitalist world dominated by capitalist China than a socialist world dominated by socialist United States.
Michal,
I wonder if there’s any hope at all
Obama seems to me to be a “product” of an intensive campaign
free people of their own free will slide into the quagmire of sovietisation.
Your almost „zoological” pessimism will never cesse to astound me. You are scaring yourself silly (and others as well, like Zeppo) because you seem to believe, I think, that only fear might motivate people to take the right action. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Fearful people accept oppression. Only optimistic people (even falsely optimistic) actually fight.
And there is plenty to be optimistic about lately: Honduras, Colombia, Peru, Switzerland (the minaret thing, not the Polanski thing). Only in Venezuela the sovietisation is progressing daily. Everywhere else, things are either improving or staying the same.
Dear Sonia,
Zoological pessimism?!? What? Are you from Gazeta Wyborcza? What does this suppose to mean? Animals, as far as we know, are neither pessimistic nor optimistic but do tell me if you know more about the subject.
Strangely enough, I was just writing about despair, and how one should not fall for it. But pessimism is something else. When pessimism is born out of one’s analysis of the situation and understanding of human nature, then being hopeful regardless, would seem foolish, don’t you think?
As I said many times before, I do not wish to motivate anyone to do anything. If I did I’d be an ideologue or a propagandist. I merely observe and try my best to tell the truth as I see it. Assuming a mantle of an optimist, just because „only optimistic people (even falsely optimistic) actually fight” is not for me. Fighting without much hope, simply because it is the right and decent thing to do – that’s more like it.
Plenty to be optimistic about lately? You are having a laugh, ain’t ya?
Michal,
Zoological… Are you from Gazeta Wyborcza?
I am glad you got that inside joke…
Fighting without much hope, simply because it is the right and decent thing to do
That NEVER happens. Just ask the Don Cossacks circa 1922. They were the greatest anti-communist fighters ever, and yet even they gave up fighting around that time because they lost hope following Riga and Rapallo betrayals when Poland and Germany recognized the Bolshevik regime.
Now, telling people that Obama is a Communist will only discourage people in Honduras, Columbia and elsewhere from fighting Chavez’s cronies. Of course, you can always say that Obama only pretends to be a moderate (why couldn’t Chavez „pretend” that too ?), but as long as Obama is allegedly „pretending”, people have the hope to fight. But if Obama is ever „exposed” (fairly or unfairly), they will lose hope and they will let FARC rule Columbia and Zelaya rule Honduras…
But I suspect that those struggles are of minor importance to you. You fail to see that right now, the „heart of darkness” of the International Communism is in Caracas, not in Moscow or Peking.
Well, I didn’t get it since I don’t think it funny…
I’m not sure I also get your other point. Is this too a joke? The Don Cossacks stopped the armed struggle, as it was no longer possible, but they hardly stopped fighting just because they had no hope. Remember „Kontra”…
If I’m not mistaken, you saw Chavez losing his referendum as cause for optimism so where is this „heart of darkness” stuff coming from now? Looks like a roller coaster ride to me. Chavez is surely a devious and sinister person and his communist regime is horrendous but he’s not more dangerous than Putin or the Chinese politburo – that would be absurd.
Well, the problem is that moscow made the homework and america doesn´t, all the losses of the communist party in my country was transformed in victory. In the sixties they start to move towards a communist revolution so the army forces with the logistical help of the usa and with public support stop the metastasis of communism spread in brazil. 40 years late brazil is facing a communist advance and the public opnion after several years of brain washing midia is asking for that, and international moscow paid midia says that brazil president is a democratic leader…hey the problem is that communist works in a orchestry with a long term objectives…and unforturnelly liberalism doesn´t, worse for freedom and his supporters.
Sorry for the language errors, but i need to express my concerns, Latin American is a focus of a big communist turnover, watch us and you will see.
Michal,
The Don Cossacks stopped the armed struggle, as it was no longer possible, but they hardly stopped fighting just because they had no hope.
Now, let’s see, until 1922, the Cossacks were fighting the Communists. They stopped between 1922 and 1941, and then they started again until 1945. Now, how did Cossacks felt in those key years: 1922, 1941 and 1945 ? Well, in 1922, they were pessimistic, in 1941 – very optimistic and in 1945 – pessimistic again. Don’t you see a pattern here ?
Chavez… he’s not more dangerous than Putin or the Chinese politburo
In my opinion, he is way more dangerous, just like Stalin was way more dangerous than Hitler. As you have said yourself, Nazis (and Putin and the Chinese are Nazis) cannot control the world, because there aren’t enough Russians (or even enough Chinese) to do it. But Chavez is an International Communist (just like Lenin) whose support is growing across Latin America and beyond. It’s like an epidemic, in which many previously healthy countries are getting sick – and you don’t seem to realize the severity of it, because you’re too distracted by still suspiciously observing countries that are slowly recovering from their near-death experiences (unlike others, like Somalia, that actually died from it).
Could you explain to me why you consider real, clear, open and unambiguous threats (that everybody knows are real and about which anybody can do something) as „not more dangerous” than hypothetical conspiracies (that cannot be proven one way or another, and about which you couldn’t do anything even if they were true) ?
„You shouldn’t confuse America’s decline with freedom’s decline. I know that it is difficult for a patriot (from any country) not to equate his country’s best interest with humanity’s best interests, but they are not the same.
I would prefer a capitalist world dominated by capitalist China than a socialist world dominated by socialist United States.”
Sonia,
Did I confuse the two?
The only problem with your „preference” is that China is a totalitarian communist regime.
Just because they fuel America’s (and the West’s) consumption doesn’t mean that they are capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. Youtube „2009 Chinese Military Parade” if you want to see what they are spending all that money on. They will put all those arms to use one day, count on it.
„Humanity’s Best Interest” – that’s a tough one. In my view, humanity’s best interests are not served by State Systems of any kind. But that is only a theoretical, philosophical dream, not reality. The hard, cold reality is: after WWII, the USA was the preeminent force in the world political situation, and maintained the balance against the USSR. (Britain was in a similar situation after the end of WWI, and made several blunders regarding their foreign policy, economics, and military strategy – blunders which led quickly to WWII.)
If you believe (as I do) that the international communist bloc works in concert all over the globe to gain power and strategically weaken the West, then the USA’s maintenance of power and leverage is crucial for the survival of many nations, not just the USA.
Eric,
They will put all those arms to use one day, count on it.
I am far less afraid of countries that „put all those arms to use” than of countries that always talk about peace…
If you believe (as I do) that the international communist bloc works in concert all over the globe to gain power and strategically weaken the West
I don’t believe it. Instead, I believe that what you call „the international communist bloc” works in concert all over the globe to brainwash all humanity (in the West, East, North and South) and turn us all into obedient cogs of their machine. They can use any „hook” to achieve it. First, they tried to pit „the workers” against „the capitalists” (they were called „Communists” back then), then „Aryans” against Jews (remember the Nazis ?), then „colonized” against „colonizers” (that was the „liberal” phase of that disease) and soon, perhaps, „the ecologically-conscious” against „the polluters” (that will be a „green” phase)… The pattern is always the same: first you manufacture a crisis („the poverty is growing!”, „Jews are taking over!”, „the colonialists are exploiting us!”, „global waming!”) and then you convince people that the only solution to that problem is a government intervention. That government intervention begins innocently enough – by throwing rich capitalists into gulags, Jews into death camps, and white Rhodesian farmers out of their farms, but it never ends there. Soon, hard-working peasants (renamed „kulaks” for the occassion) follow „the capitalists” into the gulags, anti-semitic priests share the same barracks in Auschwitz as Jewish Communists, and black Zimbabweans are slaughtered by Mugabe’s thugs.
And unfortunately, „USA’s maintenance of power and leverage” is often useless in THAT struggle. During the Cold War, US didn’t really fight against the Communist ideology, they were just fighting a rival superpower. US only fought against the Nazis because Hitler was stupid enough to ally himself with Japan, which in turn was stupid enough to attack the US first. And Washington was an active participant in the „decolonization” of Rhodesia and other countries (Angola, Mozambique, etc.) that inevitably turned into frightening hellholes.
Today, it’s a former vice-president of United States who works hard to convince people to give more power to the government to fight „global warming”, not the leaders of Russia or China…
Hi, Sonia.
„I believe that what you call “the international communist bloc” works in concert all over the globe to brainwash all humanity (in the West, East, North and South) and turn us all into obedient cogs of their machine. They can use any “hook” to achieve it.”
I don’t disagree with this. As far as brainwashing goes, please re-read what I wrote to Michal: „The mass media propaganda machine in the United States of America is so highly-developed and permeates so much of “normal, everyday life” that it is virtually unnoticeable in its overwhelming totality. To shift an entire culture, slowly – over a period of decades – now that is impressive.”
I think that the „machine” (as you put it) isn’t necessarily „communist” or „capitalist” – I think it is a natural, although disquieting, result of man’s never-ending search to organize, quantify, mechanize, and render more efficient everything in society. It seems feasible to me that much of what I view as leftist-controlled media could’ve originated as early communist operations, but I don’t know enough about it to really comment with any authority or confidence. I do know, from reading such books as Whittaker Chambers’ „Witness” and recent analysis of the McCarthy investigations („Blacklisted by History” is the one I read most recently regarding McCarthy) that the communists/KGB made serious in-roads infiltrating the government, academia, mass media, and intelligence organizations of the USA.
I also agree with you about the manufactured crisis/government intervention ploy.
However, assessing Al Gore (buffoon that he is) as anywhere near as threatening as the SCO’s war games, Russia and China’s active manipulations in India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, etc. – just doesn’t make sense to me.
The bloc is arming, and the West is disarming. That, to me, is very troubling.
America is unprepared to deal with very real coordinated communist aggression and potential war. Our strategy of fighting in limited conflicts, in a maximum of two different regions, isn’t going to cut the mustard.
Global Warming is a non-issue; it is just one more way to milk money out of everyone. The robbery cannot be sustained, and I think not just the USA, but the whole world is at the end of that rope. (The economic crisis…)
Eric,
The bloc is arming, and the West is disarming. That, to me, is very troubling.
America is unprepared to deal with very real coordinated communist aggression and potential war.
Don’t get me wrong. Communism is a deadly threat. But armed agression through conventional war isn’t their mode of operations. Just like you cannot fight ebola virus with nuclear weapons, you cannot fight communism with tanks and airplanes.
So if a „bloc” is arming, they aren’t really communists. Because if they were communists, their tanks wouldn’t have any fuel and their airplanes would miss some bolts…
Jozef Mackiewicz once said that communism is weakest in the material sphere (production and distribution of goods) and strongest in the intellectual sphere (conquering hearts and minds).
Global Warming is a non-issue; it is just one more way to milk money out of everyone.
I hope you’re right. But totalitarian communists must be salivating looking at this issue. What a great „hook” to brainwash people and transform them into obiedient „homo ecologicus” (far more obedient than „homo sovieticus”). People spying on each other and calling the „Green NKVD” („my neighbor puts his recycling into his garbage bag!”, „my husband flushes the toilet too often!”).
Sonia,
I see the pattern of a rollercoaster – do you propose to build a political view on this? To my mind you look out for „reasons to be cheerful: one, two three”. I, instead, try to see things as they are without trying hard to be pessimistic. I am pessimistic only because (in my opinion) there are no reasons to be cheerful and I refuse to interpret any signs that way just to cheer up.
For instance, you always maintained that there can be no communism in China since the politburo introduced „capitalist” reforms. To my mind that’s not even clutching at straws, it’s more like saying „It’s raining”, when someone spits in your face. Read the Brazilian above. Lula’s Brazil is hailed as a success story, market economy introduced by a communist president. I’m sorry but I refuse to seek for that kind of reasons to be cheerful.
Chavez is an internationalist communist – at least we can agree on one thing – just like Lenin was, but so is Putin and the Chinese, they only hide behind nationalism and „capitalism” to keep the masses in check. To call them Nazis is plain wrong but I do accept that in your definition you use these words in slightly different sense. I do not underestimate Chavez – you completely misunderstand me if you think so – on the contrary, I believe that South America is phenomenally important in the global game and the whole continent is probably lost now because there is no political will in the US to deal with it.
For the time being though, Putin et al. are showing a different face and you see it as a reason to be cheerful, but when they show their true face, as they inevitably will, you will say: „Oh, well, they were true Nazis (or nationalists, or capitalists, or whatever) and now they reverted to kind because they were discouraged by pessimists.” I know, I know, I’m to blame because I’m distracted by conspiracies and zoologically pessimistic.
Sonia & Eric,
It seems to me that you are almost talking at cross purposes. Sonia rightly (do I have to add: „in my opinion”?) considers communism a deadly threat and points at the attack on institutions of free societies, brainwashing of individuals, erosion of values („green nkvd” seems a vary good exapmle to me!) etc. as commies MO. But Eric never denied that.
Where I think Sonia misses the point, is in her insistence that armed aggression is not their thing. There is a lot of historic evidence that they always sought advantage in every field. Sonia is right that deathly peace is what they require most to perfect the sovietisation but „si vis pacem para bellum”. They are arming themselves to be able to opportunistically take advantage of any situation. So Eric is spot on: they are arming when the West is disarming – this could only mean trouble.
Michal,
I, instead, try to see things as they are without trying hard to be pessimistic.
the whole continent is probably lost now because there is no political will in the US to deal with it.
You love to contradict yourself…
As for Latin Ameria, it is far from lost. But if it recovers, it won’t be thanks to United States, that’s for sure.
Putin et al. are showing a different face and you see it as a reason to be cheerful, but when they show their true face, as they inevitably will, you will say: “Oh, well, they were true Nazis (or nationalists, or capitalists, or whatever) and now they reverted to kind because they were discouraged by pessimists.”
I certainly won’t be saying THIS. After all, Putin is actively helping Chavez by sending him weapons, so I am definitely not „cheerful” about Putin. But I think that it is useful to create a hierachy of danger and distinguish between people who are real totalitarian monsters (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez), garden-variety Nazis (Hitler, Putin, China’s Politburo) who sometimes support them (Ribbentrop-Molotov) and sometimes fight against them (1930’s Spain), Western fellow-travellers (FDR, Chirac, etc.), and appeasers (Neville Chamberlain, Obama, etc.).
As for „showing a true face”, that has never really happened before and if it ever will, it will be a first. I know, I know, you will speak again of the NEP and the Trust, conveniently forgetting that in the 1920’s, the Soviet Union’s rhetoric was all about „class warfare” and „capitalist pigs”. The only „liberalism” was in the cultural sphere, thanks to people like Lunacharski. In that respect, Soviet Union circa 1925 closely ressembled Venezuela circa 2009 – overheated Communist rhetoric, partly capitalist reality and relative artistic freedom.
As for Russia in 2009, it resembles Germany circa 1937 – Jewish businessman escaping abroad, militarization, sabre-rattling, bullying of neighbors, persecution of minorities, etc. It’s ugly, but it’s not Communism.
Lula’s Brazil is hailed as a success story, market economy introduced by a communist president.
Brazil always had a market economy and Lula didn’t change a thing. He is continuing the same basic policy as his precessesors. If he’s a Communist, FDR was a triple Communist. Lula’s „reforms” are far more moderate than New Deal, and his attitude towards Chavez is far more critical than FDR’s attitude towards Stalin.
I would point to Christina Kirchner of Argentina as a far more Communist leader than Lula…
Sorry, you’ll have to be a little more precise. Where exactly is the contradiction? You know, men don’t understand unless it’s clearly spelt out and, yes, I’m a man.
We went through the distinctions you propose (albeit, in another language) and I strongly disagree in any language. So Hitler was not a totalitarian monster, is that the point? Who was a totalitarian monster in Spain in the 1930’s? You seem to suggest it was Franco (forgive me if I’m wrong but you need to spell it out, remember, I’m a man) but that would be outrageoulsy wrong.
I don’t follow you on „showing a true face”. I believe commies show their true face without shame and much more often than we give them credit for. Their strength lies in the willingness of their opponents to be taken in. So the soviet, bolshevik or communist substance is there for everyone to see, yet people prefer to be fooled by a facade.
Michal,
Who was a totalitarian monster in Spain in the 1930’s?
Stalin and his Republican lapdogs. And Hitler was on the side of freedom in that war.
You seem to suggest it was Franco (forgive me if I’m wrong
You are wrong (it’s getting to be a habit with you). But I forgive you.
people prefer to be fooled by a facade
What facade ? Chavez has plenty of supporters around the world BECAUSE he is actually pretty open and honest about his Communist ambitions. Putin and the Chinese have no supporters at all (other than Russian and Chinese nationalists), so if their Nazism is just a „facade”, it’s not working for them.
Where exactly is the contradiction?
First you claim to be an optimist („see things as they are without trying hard to be pessimistic”) and then you surrender an entire continent („the whole continent is probably lost”) despite many recent victories for freedom there (Peru’s defeat of the Shining Path and an economic boom, Columbia’s victory over the FARC, Honduras’s successful overthrow of a potential dictator)…
Thank you for the discussions, Michal & Sonia. Differences of opinion on particulars and technicalities regarding the world situation, argued back and forth over the internet, are not my cup of tea. Plus I am not as studied as you both are on some of these facets you mention.
I happen to think JR Nyquist’s analyses of the political situation are usually pretty astute. I’ve read his book, and thought it was a real eye-opener. I was linked to this site through the „Final Phase” forum, which I also follow.
I will add this site to my „websites frequently visited” list.
See you around,
-Eric
Sonia,
I’m glad to have been wrong and I stand corrected. I hope you admit that it wasn’t quite clear.
The facade in the case of Putin, but even more so in the case of China, is „capitalism”, which brought forward the new „Fifth Column” in the West: the businessmen. People who are prepared to argue that all is rosy in the garden in the hope of tapping into the untold riches of markets of hungry billion plus.
Statement „South America is PROBABLY lost” hardly amounts to surrendering it, don’t you think?