- - http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en -

Semantic Liquidation of the Opposition

Posted By admin On 3 December 09 @ 9:51 In Jeff Nyquist | 29 Comments

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 language, I would use no language at all; for precise and scientific language on this topic does not exist. Political subjects always involve the use of general terms and short-cut expressions, like “democracy” or “freedom.” It is generally assumed that we know what we mean by these words. But general assumptions are often wrong. Let us inquire. What is democracy? What is freedom? There is no precise answer, and men fall into disagreement. One might also ask: What is totalitarianism? And what is Russia, for that matter – and how do we normally designate a country, a power, a government? Do we refer to the Russian government as “the Kremlin”? But the Kremlin is only a citadel. Do we say, with Vladimir Bukovsky, that Russia is ruled by a KGB power? What about the Russian Army, the General Staff, the GRU, the MVD, the red mafia, and those all-pervasive secret structures that form the “underground” of the Communist Party Soviet Union today? Here we find an orchestra, yet Bukovsky fixes his attention on the First Violinist. KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn told us, 25 years ago, what music this orchestra was going to play. He told us who the conductor was going to be. He told us that the conductor’s agenda was Communist.

With regard to genus, the sections of this orchestra share three things: first, they all speak Russian and are identified under a Russian banner; second, they were formed under the Soviet Union; third, their weapons and bunkers are in Russia. Yet Mr. Bąkowski denies that the orchestra is Russian; he prefers the term “Soviet,” though general readers will hesitate to accept this because the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991; and our linguistic difficulties are not ameliorated if we employ the term “Communist,” even though this is the correct term. With regard to differentia, it is true that the First Violinist plays a leading role while the drummers and bass players in the back of the orchestra follow the musical score with new missiles, nuclear warheads and submarines; the General Staff continues to coordinate with the “fraternal socialist countries” and “national liberation movements,” preparing to train the Cuban Army, sending weapons to Venezuela and China, laying out the plan of war; the GRU observes the decline of America’s strategic arsenal, offering insights on a target of opportunity; the MVD keeps order at home; the Foreign Ministry provides diplomatic cover, organizing arms reduction talks, integrating Communist structures into Western structures, and so on.

The orchestra is a red orchestra, a Communist formation. Its goal is world domination, and its chief obstacle is the United States. But not for long, because America is disarming. If anyone thinks that America will not disarm, they are sadly mistaken. Already the strategic posture of the United States is one that invites a nuclear first strike. I learned this firsthand from one of America’s leading nuclear strategists last June. He was in despair, pouring out his story like a man unburdening his soul. It is perfectly clear, of course, that the strategic posture of America is no accident. And we should not be surprised that the United States Congress, under the Democratic Party, will not approve the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. President Obama has also refused to support this program, even though Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says that America’s nuclear arsenal is approaching the end of its shelf-life.

If you understand the nature of Communism, and the nature of the power bloc that coincides with Communism, then you will understand the magnitude of the crisis that is approaching. Having explained all this in response to Mr. Bąkowski’s criticism, I wish to make the following point: Mr. Bąkowski sees and judges the world as it appears today. Perhaps, instead, he should judge on the basis of what is coming, what can no longer be avoided. When I say Poland is a front line state, I am talking about the day when Europe will no longer walk on crutches; for America has been Europe’s crutch. The Russian Communists think that Europe will belong to them, that the European Union will perform the function of a European Soviet. But I foresee that they have misjudged Europe, because there are unintended consequences associated with their strategy. First and foremost, the collapse of the world economy will bring about a revolution unlike the revolution predicted by Karl Marx. Not only this: the Soviet strategists have sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind. The deception of 1989 sets up a psychological sequence, and no policy will be effective once a shift in mass psychology begins. I do not know what this shift will entail, exactly. I believe there will be a new political insight, born of the tragic events that will unfold in America, and these will spread like an infection into Europe. I have thought about this for many years, and have glimpsed various aspects while meditating on the fate of my country. Try to imagine a reversal in which the world’s most powerful nation, arguably the wealthiest, most advanced, most humane nation on earth, is suddenly cast down and destroyed. In the psyche of mankind, such an event necessarily results in a new complex of ideas, and a standpoint that supersedes all petty interests, including personal survival. What I foresee is a spiritual shift, an epiphany: a point at which the soul becomes amenable to a religious conversion (or something akin to it).

A wise man once said, “Never make predictions, especially about the future.” So what I have told you, and what I am about to relate, should be taken as food for thought. It should not be taken as a prophecy. In March 1987 I was reading the autobiography of Jan Sejna, a high-level Communist defector, where he writes about Moscow’s plan to organize the fake collapse of the Warsaw Pact. I immediately realized this was the same long-range strategy discussed by Golitsyn in New Lies for Old. Several insights flashed through my mind. As it happens, I had previously read and dismissed Golitsyn’s book as a species of strategic fiction. Suddenly I realized that Golitsyn and Sejna were describing the same object, and therefore the object was real; furthermore, I realized that American policymakers were ignorant. In fact, with one or two exceptions, the study of the Soviet Union, and Soviet strategy, was a complete farce. There could be no doubt: the collapse of the Soviet Union was coming, the experts and pundits would fall for it, and the United States would subsequently eliminate thousands of nuclear weapons from its arsenal and drop its guard.

In August 1987 I began a course of reading and note-taking that would last four years and resulted in a book, which I later published under the title Origins of the Fourth World War. The book has many flaws, but it must be understood as a book of equations and formulations, an attempt to work out the future from the limited information and understanding I had at the time. The value of the exercise may be found in the strict elimination of all wishful thinking. Through this exercise I was persuaded that it would be indecent to offer a solution to the problem set forth. An obligatory happy ending would be dishonest. The sorry American habit of assuming that every problem has a solution, and authors should never raise a problem without providing a solution, is merely another proof that the business of reading and writing has become, in our time, a shallow exercise indeed. One truth emerged for me: that the solution will be found in agony, through a constant companionship with death, in a river of tears and an ocean of blood. If you think this is incorrect, you can always read Francis Fukuyama. In his book, The End of History and the Last Man, we find a degrading spectacle. In short, we get everything we want, though we haven’t earned it. Fukuyama suggests that liberal democracy is the end-all and be-all. History is done, and permanent peace has arrived. He then awkwardly denies Nietzsche’s assertion that this whole idea is sinister, if not corrupt.

What I write is a warning to all those who think that the present dispensation is permanent. 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. And there is no final victory, and no final defeat. What nation, above all others, is better able to receive this truth than Poland? And what European nation has officially published Golitsyn’s New Lies for Old as a counterintelligence guidebook? Do not despair of your country, Mr. Bąkowski. Something is taking shape in Poland, in Ukraine, in Georgia, in the Baltic States. Defeats are beside the point. Do not despise humble beginnings. Did you know? The president of Ukraine will not go to Moscow. And Russian tanks turned back after invading Georgia. A small miracle is yet a miracle, oh ye of little faith!

We should not, in all this, get stuck on words. I mentioned, previously, the word democracy. It is a stupid word, ripe with misunderstanding. Have we learned nothing from the Communists? Public opinion is fickle, and constantly changes. It is far more important to win the respect of a few prudent men than the applause of a foolish majority. I’m afraid we’ve been losing the war because of our own egalitarianism. Has this been understood? From first to last, the anti-Communists allowed the Communists to invent and define most of the words used during the Cold War. When the Communists publicly did away with those words, people began to talk of “the end of the Cold War.” Anti-Communists understood this as a victory. In reality, the anti-Communists were semantically eliminated from the game. The thoughtless multitude is so attached to words that eliminating the use of a word effectively neutralizes or eliminates those who stand against it. I call this method “the semantic liquidation” of the opposition. It is not coincidental that towards the end of his life, Stalin became interested in semantics.

Clausewitz once wrote that in a war the simplest action is very difficult. In the present war, our prospects do not hold much promise. Our gains are lost, our heroes killed, our soldiers demoralized. But our defeats are not permanent. What is more, our defeats lead to victory, to a change in human consciousness, to redemption. Another turn will come, another day will dawn. Our enemies are attached to a misbegotten, superannuated idea. They believe that their cause is the final cause.

We are not so shallow.


29 Comments (Open | Close)

29 Comments To "Semantic Liquidation of the Opposition"

#1 Comment By Serge Kabud On 4 December 09 @ 5:04

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.

#2 Comment By Apollo5600 On 9 December 09 @ 1:48

This article left me breathless. Great great writing.

#3 Comment By goatmug On 10 December 09 @ 5:30

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.

#4 Comment By michał On 10 December 09 @ 7:38

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.

#5 Comment By Eric On 10 December 09 @ 9:00

“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.

#6 Comment By michał On 10 December 09 @ 10:39

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.

#7 Comment By Eric On 10 December 09 @ 11:40

“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.)

#8 Comment By michał On 11 December 09 @ 12:56

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.

#9 Comment By Eric On 11 December 09 @ 8:22

“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.

#10 Comment By michał On 11 December 09 @ 9:19

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.

#11 Comment By zeppo On 12 December 09 @ 12:02

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.

#12 Comment By michał On 12 December 09 @ 4:15

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.

#13 Comment By Sonia Belle On 12 December 09 @ 6:09

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.

#14 Comment By michał On 12 December 09 @ 6:27

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?

#15 Comment By Sonia Belle On 12 December 09 @ 9:09

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.

#16 Comment By michał On 12 December 09 @ 11:42

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.

#17 Comment By Brazilian On 13 December 09 @ 1:35

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.

#18 Comment By Sonia Belle On 13 December 09 @ 2:36

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) ?

#19 Comment By Eric On 13 December 09 @ 2:56

“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.

#20 Comment By Sonia Belle On 13 December 09 @ 4:00

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…

#21 Comment By Eric On 13 December 09 @ 5:47

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…)

#22 Comment By Sonia Belle On 13 December 09 @ 2:25

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!”).

#23 Comment By michał On 13 December 09 @ 4:14

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.

#24 Comment By michał On 13 December 09 @ 5:07

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.

#25 Comment By Sonia Belle On 13 December 09 @ 5:26

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…

#26 Comment By michał On 13 December 09 @ 5:48

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.

#27 Comment By Sonia Belle On 13 December 09 @ 6:45

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)…

#28 Comment By Eric On 13 December 09 @ 6:58

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

#29 Comment By michał On 13 December 09 @ 7:05

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?


Article printed from : http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en

URL to article: http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en/2009/12/03/english-semantic-liquidation-of-the-opposition/

Copyright © 2007 . All rights reserved.