La Russophobe has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Take action now to save Darfur

Thursday, September 27, 2007

EDITORIAL: Russia is an Evil Empire


Russia is an Evil Empire

Displayed at the left you see a photograph of Shiri Negari, who was murdered on Tuesday, June 18th, 2002, by a Palestinian suicide bomber on her way to work. She was 21 years old.

Blogger Michelle Malkin took this photograph while participating in a protest against the visit by crazed Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Columbia University in New York City for a speaking engagement; the lunatic was in town to address to the U.N. General Assembly at its opening ceremonies.

Shiri speaks from the grave in this image, attending the protest in spirit to remind those gathered that she, too, would have liked to address the students at Columbia, but was prevented from doing so by terrorists from Hamas who were funded by Iran's government, which is led by Ahmadinejad -- who in turn has called for a holy war against Israel wiping it off the face of the earth. All of the NATO allies are now furiously arrayed against Iran and, amazingly enough, France's new president is leading the charge to impose draconian sanctions to keep Iran in line. If France is willing to take action, you know that Ahmadinejad is just as extreme as he can possibly get.

One might well ask: Where does Ahmadinejad get the brazen hubris necessary to confront the overwhelmingly more powerful team of the United States and Europe in this haughty, contemptuous manner? His nation, alone, is far too puny to work up such suicidal pathos (look how easily the U.S. destroyed the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq). There's a clear answer: He gets it from Russia, and specifically from Russia's dictator Vladimir Putin. It is no overstatement to say that Russia is the real root cause of turmoil in the Middle East.

And make no mistake: turmoil in the Middle East is directly in Russia's interests. Even if it doesn't actually undermine U.S. security, it still creates the conditions of uncertainty which tend to keep international oil prices inflated, and those prices are the Kremlin's lifeblood. By supporting terrorist and rogue regimes in the Middle East, Russia not only gets the chance to vent its pathological hatred of America and her values, but more importantly supports the only pillar of its economy. Peace and stability in the Middle East are the last things Russia wants.

Recently, we published a drawing depicting Putin and Ahmadinejad as lovers, and the two truly are birds of a feather. Ahmadinejad is cracking down on Iran's universities, seeking to purge them of all secular influence, while Putin is developing the maniacal "Nashi" youth cult in Russia. Ahmadinejad denies that Iran has any homosexuals, and hence can't be accused of persecuting them, while Putin jokes about rape in front of a diplomatic delegation. Ahmadinejad says the Jewish holocaust never happened, and Putin says Stalin wasn't really so bad after all. Both are shutting down newspapers and arresting or killing journalists at breakneck speed, and centralizing their power whilst crushing local government. One could go on for days listing the barbaric outrages taking place in these two countries and pointing out their similarities; it's almost impossible to decide which one is a greater affront to democracy, almost as if they are engaged in a sickening pas de deux, the Fred and Ginger of atrocity, barbarity and vulgarity.

And the two are very literally in bed together where hatred of America, Europe and Western values are concerned. Recently, the U.S. military confirmed that Iran is providing missiles to the Islamic terrorists in Iraq which are being used to kill Americans on the ground there. While these particular missiles apparently came to Iran by way of North Korea, Putin's Russia is also providing Ahmadinejad's Iran with the technology it needs to develop nuclear energy, which Iran hopes will be the basis for its obtaining a nuclear weapon. Faced with the threat of Western attack should a bomb become possible, Iran has also obtained a missile defense system from Russia to thwart such an attack. Russia has continually refused to cooperate with Western moves to sanction Iran, providing it with the diplomatic cover it needs to continue killing American soldiers in Iraq as it seeks to exercise imperial control over that troubled nation.

And we must not forget that Russia is doing far more than making common cause with Iran in order to foment turmoil and instability in the Middle East. It is directly supporting Hamas itself, as well as Hezbollah and Syria, with diplomatic protection, weapons and lots of cold hard cash. And Russia's hostility is not limited to the Middle East; it is also providing weapons and diplomatic support to the crazed dictator Hugo Chavez in Venezulea, and seeking to cooperate with the abusive, anti-democratic communist regime in China.

The ironies are almost overwhelming, of course. You can't get any more anti-Muslim than Russia's conduct of its war against Chechnya, and there is zero tolerance for dark-skinned non-Orthodox people in Slavic Russia, yet the hyper-Islamic Ahmadinejad and the ultra-Orthodox Putin both have no problem abandoning their supposed core values and ignoring this fundamental hostility in the short term (just the same way that it was easily possible for Stalin to enter into a secret pact with Hitler selling out Europe). Although these kind of alliances between rogue nations always lead ultimately to their destruction (both Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR were obliterated), in the short term the new Evil Empire means a great deal of trouble for the West if it is allowed to fester and grow. Immediate action is needed to prevent this from happening. A new Ronald Reagan must step to the forefront, and the upcoming U.S. presidential elections are the ideal place to start looking for her (or him).

It's time to give up the ridiculous, childish and arrogant idea that the only reason Iran and Russia are keeping company together is that our misguided policies have driven them together. The idea that by "engaging" these two regimes we could "convince" them to stop desecrating the globe with their barbarism is a flight of fancy, the easy way out, too good to be true. It's oh-so-comforting to imagine that we are so powerful that if we only say the right magic words, all our enemies will turn into friends, or at least harmless bystanders, that we don't have to fight -- and this is exactly what our enemies want us to think. They want us to drop our guard, "engage" them with meaningless rhetoric and allow them to consolidate, manipulate and destroy.

It was not kind words of understanding that brought down the USSR, it was direct confrontation. And it was simply insane for us to believe that simply because it had been defeated the USSR would slink away into the recesses of history, never to be heard from again. Would we have become happy communists if the USSR had won the cold war? Of course not. And Russia has not abandoned its fundamental hostility to our values or its desire to rule the world with its own brand of what's-good-for-you. It simply bided its time waiting for the chance to lash out, and rising oil prices have made it think (quite wrongly) that the time has come.

It was possible for us to turn Japan and Germany into friendly, democracy-respecting nations because we physically gutted their leadership and obliterated them militarily. No such thing happened in Russia after World War II, and today the "president" of the country is a proud KGB spy who spent most of life trying to destroy our democratic friends in Germany. As long as Putin and his ilk hold power in Russia, that nation will remain devoted to our destruction by any means possible. They are a mere shadow of their former might, and so the only way they can make serious trouble for is is by getting us to drop our guard. And so that is what they are endeavoring feverishly to accomplish.

That Vladimir Putin, presiding over a nation which loses up to 1 million from its population every year due to demographic crisis, and works for an average wage of $3/hour, would think he has the time and energy to spare to make common cause with one of the world's most despised despots, antagonizing the entire world into a cold (and perhaps hot) war, and that nobody within Russia would seriously challenge his doing so, is clear proof of the depth and breadth of Russia's abiding hatred for the West and its total inability to act rationally in the face of it. And what else should we expect from a man who spent his entire life in the KGB, learning not merely to hate the West but to destroy it by any possible means. Do we really believe he simply woke up, as if from a dream, when the USSR collapsed and abandoned his life's work? If so, we deserve to suffer for our stupidity, hubris and insularity.

We must fight back, and we must do so now. There are those who argue that it was wise to give Ahmadinejad the opportunity to speak at Columbia, since it helps to elicit his crazy views and lay them before the world, helps us to better understand how to deal with him. This is pure nonsense. Ironically, Columbia's own president said, introducing Ahmadinejad as a speaker: "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous." So much for respectfully allowing him to speak and eliciting his views! As David J. Feith & Jordan C. Hirsch of National Review put it:
It is naive to ignore the uses to which Ahmadinejad will put his invitation. Over the past years, Ahmadinejad's confrontational rhetoric and policies have resulted in diplomatic isolation and economic hardship for Iran. These developments are unpopular among Iranians. It is beneficial to Ahmadinejad and his regime, then, if he can claim to the Iranian people that his leadership is not hurting their country. If he can demonstrate that he is treated abroad as a respected leader, he will be better able to counter his critics at home. Columbia's invitation thus gives political assistance to Ahmadinejad.
By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, Columbia has enabled his dictatorship and increased his power, not diminished it. The same happened when Putin was invited on Larry King. It would be one thing to extend such invitations if we were actively engaged in combat with our enemies, but we are not. As Anne Applebaum wrote in the Washington Post: "it was deeply naive to imagine that the Iranian president would enter into a 'vigorous debate' with students who were deploying their 'powers of dialogue and reason,' as Columbia University President Lee Bollinger stated before the event, or that he would answer the appropriately aggressive questions Bollinger put to him." Applebaum points out that Columbia didn't even insist on an exchange whereby Ahmadinejad would allow a strongly anti-Iranian Westerner to address a large group of students at one of Iran's most prestigious universities -- much less is Columbia devoting its resources to figuring out ways we can remove this maniac from his seat of power and oppression.

We must not do the same with Vladimir Putin, it's his only hope of defeating us with only the feeble resources of the neo-Soviet Union at his disposal. We have to stop asking for it -- or we're going to get it. Right between the eyes.


Anonymous said...

I hope Ahmadinejad will help us kick your sorry ass some day, La Russophobe.

Artfldgr said...

forgive me if this is too long.. its hard to make cases and state history with references and keep it to trite short commentary.

sorry i am too wordy...

Cui buono?

Who benefits?

When one looks at things in the world, one can use Cui Buono to often trace things back to their source. While accidents can benefit some, there comes a time when there are way too many beneficial accidents. This is one thing one can say about russia and the middle east.

Again, the information is not protected or hidden, its just not something that fits the ideology (socialism) that they want to promote. After all, it would raise a lot of questions and cause progress to slow (depending on how you define progress), and just cause paranoia (as ‘Russian’ claims). However, if one were to look at the nation states that benefit from discord in the middle east, it would be hard put to ignore the huge benefits to the neo-soviet union.

The bloodiest terrorists in the world were or are agents of the KGB-FSB. These are well-known, like Carlos Ilyich Ramiros, nicknamed "the Jackal," the late Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Adjalan (he is condemned in Turkey), Wadi Haddad, the head of the service of external operations of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hauyi, the head of the communist party of Lebanon, Mr. Papaionnu from the Cyprus, Sean Garland from Ireland and many others. All of them were trained by the KGB, received money from there, weapons and explosives, counterfeit documents and a communication equipment for carrying out of acts of terrorism worldwide. – Litvinenko

Could you name someone from recent history?

Certainly, here it is. The number two person in the terrorist organization al Qaeda, who they are crediting with the series of explosions in London, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an old agent of the FSB. Being sentenced to death in Egypt for terrorism and hunted by Interpol, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 1998, was in the territory of Dagestan, where for half a year he received special training at one of the educational bases of the FSB. After this training he was transferred to Afghanistan, where he had never been before and where, following the recommendation of his Lubyanka chiefs, he at once ... penetrated the milieu of bin Laden and soon became his assistant in al Qaeda. – Litvinenko

Good magicians wave a hand in the air to get attention while the other does the dirty work.

Anatoly Golitsyn defected ni 1961… in late 70s, his book predicted 149 things of which 145/6 have been completed. 20+ years before things happened he explained they would happen and why. no one realizes or cares to realize that what he knew of the future, was halted in 61 when he left the KGB and defected. From that point on, he could technically only provide the information that was aprt of the things he was a part of.

These books are NOT popular with leftists, they claim that from the 60s on, that the soviets (which is who they were when this started), would restructure as they did several times before, but on a grander scale. And that they would pretend to be friends of the west to get technology and ability to be part of the economic sphere and directly influence outcomes.

“The Soviet strategists may replace the old leader, Konstantin Chernenko, who is actually only a figurehead, with a younger Soviet leader who was chosen some time ago as his successor, named Comrade Gorbachev. One of Gorbachev’s primary tasks will be to carry out the so-called liberalization” (Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception, p. 183).

He wrote about this stuff two years before there was any news publishes as to the happenings of perestroika (restructuring).

“I don’t think Gorbachev is a Leninist anymore…I don’t think we have been deceived—-at least, I hope we haven’t.” -- MARGARET THATCHER, Personal interview with Christopher Story

The reason I go back to this, is that this is where it all starts.. in the 60s it was Romanian kgb and others who would create the modern version of islam from flaming up the past (or haven’t you noticed that that’s what they do? feminists are aflame not about how men are today, but about how men have presumably been through all time… blacks are upset about what happened to other people in the past by other people, that they are willing to war against people who have only been on the continent in the last 40 years. Gays are not happy with the status they now enjoy, its not enough, they want recompense for the ills visited on all of them in the past, by people with no relation to the present. Islam, same thing, they want to use the past as reason to foment problems in the present and future. Goes back to shakespear too. read Richard the third, early part of the play when they are discussing the ownership of “salic” lands)

While I cant put ALL the predictions here… I will put a few of them… and hopefully they will make thinking about the current situation and the claims above, which pretend to work from Cui Buono, but also know this fuller history (that is not kept fresh in the main stream).

Pages 327-328: “The Communist strategists are now poised to enter into the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of Communism. Given the multiplicity of parties in power, the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the Communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and stratagems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such…stratagems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland. From New lies for old - Written late 70s, published in 1984

This next one is really explaining an old tactic. Mao used it to flush out entreprenures and enemies of the people. The germans used it to trick smart jews into giving themselves up by playing on their hopes and disbelief of reality. Russia used it to take control of the arab factions in Afghanistan, and to great effect… for it eradicated the US favored groups in total, and left only soviet favored groups remaining. (their ability to actually kill their own people without problem allows them to set up such fake things and make them believable. If it takes a freedom fighter killing 300 russian soldiers to make a hero for the enemies to gather under… then its worth it to such pragmatists)

Pages 241-242: “The creation of a false, controlled opposition movement like the dissident movement serves the internal and external strategic purposes.
Internally it provides a vehicle for the eventual false ‘liberalization’ of a Communist regime; it provokes some would-be opposition elements to expose themselves to counter-action, and others are driven to conformity or despair. Externally, ‘dissidents’ can act as vehicles for a variety of disinformation themes on the subject of the evolution of the Communist system… It sets the scene for an eventual dramatic ‘liberalization’ of the system by heightening the contrast between neo-Stalinism and future ‘socialism with a human face.’ It creates a cadre of figures who are well known in the West and who can be used in the future as the leaders and supporters of the ‘multi-Party system’ under Communism. ‘Dissident’ trade unions and intellectuals can be used to promote solidarity with their Western counterparts and engage them in joint campaigns for disarmament and the reform of Western ‘military-industrial complexes.’ In the long run the Western individuals and groups involved will face the choice of admitting that their support for dissidents was mistaken or accepting that Communism has undergone a radical change, making ‘convergence’ an acceptable, and perhaps desirable, prospect.” From New lies for old - Written late 70s, published in 1984

People like ‘Russian’ have been suckered into it. Russophobe has not been suckered because it’s the same people and she knew these peoples history. ‘russian’ denies that history, or relegates it to the past.

That bolded part written 23 years ago, describes this situation exactly…

remember all the papers by the famous anarchists and feminists that wrote a warning after lennins revolution showed them the truth? remember that I pointed out that the purpose was so we wouldn’t get suckered again… and like a neo-soviet version of the three stooges, we go nyuck and never learn..

Page 262: “One of the objectives [of Euro-Communism] was to prepare the ground, in coordination with Bloc policy in general, for an eventual ‘liberalization’ in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and a major drive to promote the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and the withdrawal of the American military presence from a neutral, socialist Europe.”

If you take the strategy I have laid out as to weapons, money and control.. then it makes sense that prior to 9/11, things were going just the way they wanted them. then they pushed to have this stunt happen, a kind of test… and we didn’t respond the way they thought we would, we went right when they thought we would go left. and now more than 30 years of maneuvering is in question with NATO moving things in rather than out.

Page 323: “The Western strategy of a mildly activist approach to Eastern Europe, with emphasis on human rights, is doomed to failure because it is based on misconceptions and will lead ultimately into a trap when a further spurious liberalization takes place in Eastern Europe in the final phase of the long-range Communist policy. Not the least disturbing aspect of the present crisis in Western assessments and policy is that, if it is recognized at all, its causes are misunderstood. As matters stand the West is acutely vulnerable to the coming major shift in Communist tactics in the final phase of their policy.

And those that have been reading everything, not just main stream media, and their philosophy teachers and such… they are noticing that putins reforming to the old ways is the sign that the game is coming to a close… or at least this chapter… and that soon, there will end up being another attempt and a reckoning of some sort.
However, russia always thought that she would be in the superior position, and so they are now forced to team up with china… but the enemy of my enemy is my friend wills out only as long as there is an enemy. However, the islamics are doing a lot of the dirty work for them, and they are taking the blame for the machinations. They are not bright enough to realize that this is a game they never should have desired to play. But they are in a thicket of crap that would make a coprophilic orgasm constantly. There is enough strength in their manipulations and so many apologists and those who refuse to see dark ever, that they can freely create a rock to put the politican between.
Page 338-340: “The intensification of hardline policies and methods in the Soviet Union, exemplified by Sakharov’s arrest and the occupation of Afghanistan, presages a switch to ‘democratization’ following, perhaps, Brezhnev’s departure from the political scene… Brezhnev’s successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Alexander Dubcek. The succession will be important only in the presentational sense.
The reality of collective leadership and the leaders’ common commitment to the long-range policy will continue unaffected… The Brezhnev regime and its neo-Stalinist actions against ‘dissidents’ and in Afghanistan would be condemned as Novotny’s regime [in Czechoslovakia] was condemned in 1968.
The economic field reforms might be expected to bring Soviet practice more into line with Yugoslavia, or even seemingly, with Western socialist models… The Party would be less conspicuous, but would continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before…
Political ‘liberalization’ and ‘democratization’ would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968. This rehearsal might well have been the kind of political experiment Nikolay Mironov [former head of the Party’s Administrative Organs Department] had in mind as early as 1960. The ‘liberalization’ would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the Communist Party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between legislative, executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power and the president and deputies greater apparent independence.
The posts of President of the Soviet Union and First Secretary of the Party might well be separated. The KGB would be ‘reformed’. Dissidents at home would take up positions of leadership in government. Sakharov might be included in some capacity in government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as writers’ unions and the Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to non-members of the Communist Party.
Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed and exhibited. Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers. Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained. There would be greater freedom for the Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.
But, as in the Czechoslovak case, the ‘liberalization’ would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the Party through its cells and individual members of government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists…”

And here is a paragraph that should make you take note. Then I have to stop because I will get in trouble for too much.

Given publishing dates and such, and the need for CIA approval as well as MI5 and MI6, the book was written more than 5 years before the publishing in 1984. the publishing date is not the instantaneous production of a book… it’s the culmination of one state (creation) and the start of another (distribution).
Note in the paragraph below that he was telling us that the reunification of germany would happen, that the wall would come down, and such… remember how much of a surprise it was? that’s because no one would believe that it would come down. I remember my dad and I talking and he thought he would never see it in his lifetime.
Everyone gets suckered by the con artist, because they tell the people what they want to hear deep down inside, and they want that so bad, that they are willing to risk it all to grab the thing they want most.
What was the con? That communists gave up. that they decided that they were wrong, and did so without a war. That they have come over to the other side, and we can now start to forge a future wihotut that dark cloud of totalitarianism. That totalitarianism can be broken without destruction or much blood shed.
It was a fantasy come true… the enemy suddenly wakes up and realizes that its all over and gives up, and we all live in peace…
When stated like that it doesn’t sound so plausible does it?

Pages 340-342: “The dissident movement is now being prepared for the most important aspect of its strategic role, which will be to persuade the West of the authenticity of Soviet ‘liberalization’ when it comes. Further high-level defectors, or ‘official émigrés’, may well make their appearance in the West before the switch in policy occurs.
The prediction of Soviet compliance with the Helsinki agreements is based on the fact that it was the Warsaw Pact countries and a Soviet [agent of influence] who initiated and pressed for the [negotiations]…
‘Liberalization’ in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates. If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated…
Western acceptance of the new ‘liberalization’ as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of Communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan… Euro-Communism would be revived. The pressure for united fronts between Communist and socialist parties and trade unions at the national and international level would be intensified.
This time, the socialists might finally fall into the trap. United front governments under strong Communist influence might well come to power in France, Italy, and possibly other countries. Elsewhere the fortunes and influence of Communist Parties would be much revived. The bulk of Europe might well turn to left-wing socialism, leaving only a few pockets of conservative resistance.
Pressure could well grow for a solution of the German problem in which some form of confederation between East and West Germany would be combined with neutralization of the whole and a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. France and Italy, under united front governments, would throw in their lot with Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain would be confronted with a choice between a neutral Europe and the United States.
NATO could hardly survive this process. The Czechoslovaks, in contrast with their performance in 1968, might well take the initiative, along with the Romanians and Yugoslavs, in proposing (in the Helsinki context) the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in return for the dissolution of NATO.
The disappearance of the Warsaw Pact would have little effect on the coordination of the Communist bloc, but the dissolution of NATO could well mean the departure of American forces from the European continent and a closer European alignment with a ‘liberalized’ Soviet Bloc. Perhaps in the long run, a similar process might affect the relationship between the United States and Japan leading to abrogation of the security pact between them.
The EEC [EU] on present lines, even if enlarged, would not be a barrier to the neutralization of Europe and the withdrawal of American troops. It might even accelerate the process. The acceptance of the EEC by Eurocommunist parties in the 1970s, following a period of opposition in the 1960s, suggests that this view is shared by the communist strategists.
The efforts by the Yugoslavs and Romanians to create stronger links with the EEC should be seen, not as inimical to Soviet interests, but as the first step in laying the foundations for the merger between EEC and COMECON. The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals’ would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe.

The United States, betrayed by her former European allies, would tend to withdraw into fortress America or, with the few remaining conservative countries, including perhaps Japan, would seek and alliance with China as the only counterweight to Soviet power.”

Its fascinating to read this old book and have so much of it be relevant… imagine reading a book in which the weather was predicted with 94% accuracy for a date 30 years in advance… whats amazing is that after a few years it didn’t get deflected and irrelevant (as such things normally do).

I cant resist and Russophobe will now hate me… but I have to put a couple of quotes more up… you know.. nails in the coffin.
‘It was not in 1985 but in 1958 that the Communist leaders recognized, after the Hungarian and Polish revolts, that the Stalinist practice of mass repression had severely damaged the system and that radical measures were necessary to restore it. It was then that they decided to transform the Stalinist system into a more attractive form of ‘Communist democracy’.
‘It was then that the Communist leaders realized that Communism could not be spread abroad against a background of fear and mass repression and that world Communist victory could only be achieved by transforming the Soviet and other Communist regimes into a form more attractive to the West.’
‘It was during 1958-1960 that the Communist leaders envisaged the convergence of restructured and transformed capitalist systems leading ultimately to one system of World Government. Taking account of the military strength of NATO, the Communist leaders decided to build up their military strength as a guarantee of the success of their programme of domestic ‘reform’ and as a pressure weapon for disarmament negotiations with the West and the execution of their strategy of convergence.’
‘Accepting the necessity for stability in the political leadership of the USSR for the execution of the long-range strategy, the Soviet leaders rejected Stalin’s practice of eliminating his rivals and reverted to Lenin’s style of leadership. They solved the problem through the selection by the Central Committee of Nikita Khrushchev’s successor in advance of Khrushchev’s own retirement. Leonid Brezhnev had already been chosen in this way in July 1960 when he was made President and was given a special briefing by the Chairman of the KGB in preparation for the new responsibilities he would be assuming when Khrushchev stepped down.’
‘A common commitment to the long-range strategy itself became a factor in the prevention of further power struggles. Western experts failed to understand this because Khrushchev’s retirement was deliberately misrepresented by the Soviet leaders to the West as his dismissal.’

‘Since 1959 the Communist bloc Parties and governments have been involved in practical experiments and rehearsals for separate elements of ‘perestroika’ in different countries in preparation for its introduction overall.’
• An attempt at ‘liberalisation’ in the early 1960s under Khurshchev.
• Publication of an article about market economics by Professor Yevsei Liberman and experiments with firms and ‘trusts’ in 1962 (along the same lines as Lenin’s NEP experiments in the 1920s).
Alexei Kosygin’s economic reforms in 1965.
Alleged ‘Romanian independence’ from the early 1960s onwards
• The ‘Cultural Revolution’ in China—in fact a campaign of ideological and political re-education and a preparation of the inexperienced and inept Chinese Party bureaucracy for détente with the capitalist West.
• ‘Democratisation’ in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

• Legalisation by the Polish Communist Party of Solidarity in 1980.

• The introduction of capitalist incentives in China and Hungary during the 1970s and the 1980s.’

‘From the time the strategy was adopted, the Party leadership made it clear to its technocrats, bureaucrats, military and intellectuals that the requirements of the strategy are paramount for their activities and the assessment of their performance. Because of these demands and Party discipline, there can be no genuine opposition among conservatives in the Party, the military or the technocracy.’

Doesn’t it make you wonder what the rest says will happen? That we are in the “final phase”, and that the scissors will start to close.


How many know any of this history of russia? China? How would someone like ‘russian’ be able to make an assessment if all he has is nothing to compare to and the attitude that the past does not effect the future (in total oppostite to george Santayana)

Well here is what someone else copied and commented in (so its not my comments, its someone elses dotted inside… they are accurate so I didn’t work them out)

Integration of the Communist Bloc would follow the lines envisaged by Lenin when the Third Communist International was founded. That is to say, the Soviet Union and China would not absorb one another or other Communist states. All the countries of the European and Asiatic Communist zones, together with new Communist states in Europe and the Third World, would join a supranational economic and political Communist federation (this is precisely what the Soviets have in mind for the impending EU collective).
Soviet-Albanian, Soviet-Yugoslav, and Soviet-Romanian disputes and ‘differences’ would be resolved in the wake, or possibly in advance of, Sino-Soviet reconciliation (Golitsyn goes to great lengths in previous chapters to show how the split between the Soviets and the Chinese was completely healed immediately after Stalin’s death…however, they continued the illusion of a split to dupe the West into backing alternating sides, depending on circumstances). The political, economic, military, diplomatic, and ideological cooperation between all the Communist states, at present partially concealed, would become clearly visible. There might even be public acknowledgment that the splits and disputes were long-term disinformation operations that had successfully deceived the “imperialist” powers. The effect on Western morale can be imagined’ (the Soviets have employed this tactic on numerous occasions).
‘In the new worldwide Communist federation the present different brands of Communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful. Concessions made in the name of economic and political reform would be withdrawn. Religious and intellectual dissent would be suppressed. Nationalism and all other forms of genuine oppositions would be crushed. Those who had taken advantage of détente to establish friendly Western contacts would be rebuked or persecuted like those Soviet officers who worked with the Allies during the Second World War. In new Communist states—for example, in France, Italy, and the Third World—the “alienated classes” would be reeducated. Show trials of “imperialist agents” would be staged. Action would be taken against nationalist and social democratic leaders, party activists, former civil servants, officers, and priests. The last vestiges of private enterprise and ownership would be obliterated. Nationalization of industry, finance, and agriculture would be completed. In fact, all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear, especially in those countries newly won for Communism. Unchallenged and unchallengeable, a true Communist monolith would dominate the world.’

Good thing that nothing like this could ever happen… right?

La Russophobe said...


Thanks for proving what a civilized, friendly country Russia is. No need for anyone to expand NATO, that's clear!


You have plenty of interesting ideas but you really do need to think more about why you are writing. People won't read such a long diatribe, so what's the point of writing it? Focus your ideas on a single paragraph and post links so people can read longer material if they desire.

Anonymous said...

Russophobe, no mention I see of the holocaust that the Jews and their American allies are carrying out right now in Palestine? What about Israel's racial purity laws, which state that only people of Jewish blood can get married in the country. The Jews are the biggest Nazis of them all.

Or is it only the goy which should be lectured on human rights?

Anonymous said...

No mention of the encouragement given to Putin at various times by Bush, Schroeder, Chirac.

La Russophobe said...


We've repeatedly condemned George Bush for his outrageous policy towards Russia, doing so most recently here:

But the root cause of the problem in Russia is the people of Russia, not the government of the United States.