Editors’ Statement

    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” and “German”, as preposterous as mistaking “Polish” and “anti-Semitic”, as stupid as calling all Ukrainians “rezuns”. Collective responsibility was a big thing with people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Comments such as those we have seen here recently belong to communist blogs (if there is such a thing) but they are not welcome here. Russo-phobia is every bit as despicable as anti-Semitism or anti-Ukrainian sentiments but first and foremost it is embarrassingly silly.

    2. Use of Wikipedia as a source material, frankly, defies belief. Wikipedia and similar web based compendia rely on open source, and are therefore, by definition, open to abuse and political manipulation; especially so, when the subject matter is somewhat controversial, and most subjects we discuss in The Underground are somewhat controversial. This is not to say that all the hard work of a multitude of editors of web based encyclopedias, is to be dismissed – they have indeed done a very good job and they mostly deserve our respect – but it did not and could not elevate Wikipedia to the level of a serious source. It may be used as a good starting point to find out more about a new subject but quoting it in a political discourse is degrading.

    3. The use of tools such as google translate in serious research boggles the mind. Research presented as some sort of “political insight” cannot depend on tools such as this; obviously, unless it is only dressed up as serious political insight. Anyone with any rudimentary knowledge of more than one language knows full well that an automatic translator cannot properly convey the subtle points of any text, which was worth rendering in another language in the first place. And if it is not worth the effort of a decent translation than we, on this website, do not wish to know about it.

Let me give an illustration. This is a fragment of the original interview with Jeff Nyquist:

Soviet strategy entered a diversionary phase in 1989, with the following features. First, they took away the West’s concept of the enemy by removing the word Soviet. By September 2001 they succeeded in establishing a new enemy – al Qaeda. The practical consequence of this strategy is twofold: The Americans are engaged in a program of nuclear disarmament; and they have become diverted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This means that the U.S. is no longer monitoring or countering the war preparations of Moscow’s new military bloc.

And the following is an effort in Polish by google translator:

Sowieckiej strategii weszła dywersyjnych etapu w 1989 r., przy spełnieniu następujących warunków. Najpierw zabrali pojęcie Zachodu wroga, usuwając wyraz radzieckich. W wrześniu 2001 udało im się w tworzeniu nowego wroga – al Kaidy. Praktyczną konsekwencją tej strategii jest dwojaki: Amerykanie są zaangażowani w program rozbrojenia nuklearnego, a stały się przekazywane przez wojny w Iraku i Afganistanie. Oznacza to, że USA nie jest już monitorowania i przeciwdziałania przygotowań do wojny w Moskiwe nowego bloku wojskowego.

If this gobbledygook reminds our readers of something than – yes! – it sounds remarkably like the nonsensical pronouncements by one Serge Kabud.

So let us see what this trusted assistant of Mr Kabud’s political research would make of our translation. This is how it would look in English:

Soviet strategy entered a phase of diversion in 1989. First of all, the West picked up the concept of the enemy by removing the word “Soviet.” Then in September of 2001 they managed to install a new enemy – al Qaeda. Adoption of this strategy with the Soviet party has two practical consequences: the Americans unilaterally dismantles its nuclear arsenal, and they are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in turn means that they can not prevent war preparations, the new unit of Moscow’s military.

    4. We do not wish to engage in discussion on the above points. Bluntly, any debate would be pointless. On our website we will simply not permit the use of mechanical translators, we will frown upon quotes from Wikipedia and we will surely not tolerate embarrassing nonsense of the kind mentioned in point 1.

    5. We detest censorship in any form. So far we never had to censor anyone on this site, although God knows we were sorely tempted. After all, if one cannot say what one wants to say in The Underground, than where? But we will not stand for lowering of our standards to such abominable level.

Mr Kabud is hereby warned that should he continue in this vein we will ask him not to participate further in discussions on our website.

Send to a friend

3 Comments “Editors’ Statement”

  1. 1 Serge Kabud

    O, just love it!

  2. 2 Serge Kabud

    I have an idea: we can sue Wikipidia for moral damages

  3. 3 michał

    Feel free.



Books Published by The Underground

Order here:

Jacek Szczyrba

Punkt Langrange`a

J.R. Nyquist
Koń trojański
Dariusz Rohnka
Wielkie arrangement

Dariusz Rohnka
Fatalna Fikcja