Posted on 09/06/2001 10:11:16 AM PDT by tomakaze
I am not sure how to parse this sentence. If he means that NATO had something to do with the country sliding left then he is more right than if he is using NATO as an insignia of American Interests. The Czechs had the closest thing in Europe to a libertarian government under Vaclav Klaus, and their economy was the fastest growing (except for Slovakia's -- but nobody wanted to count them). That was until Mad Albright came to town and convinced the president and parliament that they would have to raise taxes in order to have a chance at joining the International Community. She told them that they would have to double their defense spending.
Anyone who pretends that Isreal can do no wrong and really loves us an ally; anyone who thinks that nobody and no gobal intersets do not pull GW's strings, is kneedeep in BS of their own making.
European Christianity is an empty shell - been there lately? Apparently not. In fact, Europe is a post-Christian society; and America is headed in that direction. Fact: Africa has more Christians than Europe or North America.
Communisim, by the Marxist definition, never existed. There was no "withering away of the state" due to the "contradictions inherent in capitalism." There was no grand coming together of the proletariat to build a better society. Those are utopian no-places.
All communist states were and are examples of despotism. It is the all powerful government ordering who will do what when. Lennin, Stalin, Mao and Castro didn't really believe any of that nonsense about making the peoples lives any better, they cared only about obtaining power and holding onto it. Communisim extolls the state and the many with the individual being unimportant and disposable. What better mask for a dictator to wear?
What does this have to do with the topic here? Simple: communist dictatorships, the ones who could conceivably mount such secret plans, can exist only by supressing the rights of the individuals. The less free the individual, the more power to the state. Only an obscenely powerful state could scheme as the author of that article imagines.
Look at Russia (and the other states of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Block) and what do you see? They are either in disarray (little surprise considering what they are coming out of) or are embracing freedom and reform. Russia, as others in this thread have pointed out, has a lower income tax rate that the U.S. (look what's happening in Ireland to get an idea of where this will lead and Russia has more natural resources) and has enacted into law the ability to buy and sell land. If they get a Bill of Rights on the books they will be real competition. (And China will then see you as the threat rather than us.)
In short, despot states are a threat to us free democracies are not. You have to have your aluminum deflector beanie on too tight to think the Russians are as unfree as they were seventeen years ago.
NaW.
(It's 2001 not 1984...)
You know, they all passed through remote mind-reading training. Remember the Tunguska 'meteorite' crash? Since than, Russia posesses an alien super-telepatic hectopus (like an octopus, but with 16 tentacles) which trains Russian and Soviet spies and agents. The creature is keeped in secret even from the Politburo...
</just kidding>
Tin foil hats off!
Both are possible. I wonder though, when and how much, if anything, he made from his books.
I have no way of verifying the accuracy of any of it, and sorry for the quick cut and paste, but:
Anatoly Golitsyn
New Lies For Old
The Communist strategy of deception and Disinformation
An ex-KGB officer warns how communist deception threatens survival of the West
Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984, 412 pp., $15
Editors' Foreword
Very rarely disclosures of information from behind the Iron Curtain throw new light on the roots of communist thought and action and challenge accepted notions on the operation of the communist system. We believe that this book does both these things. It is nothing if not controversial. It rejects conventional views on subjects ranging fro Khrushchev's overthrow to Tito's revisionism, from Dubchek's liberalism to Ceausecu's independence, and from the dissident movement to the Sino-Soviet split. The author's analysis has many obvious implications for Western policy. It will not be readily accepted by those who have for long been committed to opposing points of view. But we believe that the debates it is likely to provoke will lead to a deeper understanding of the nature of the threat from international communism and, perhaps, to a firmer determination to resist it.
The author's services to the party and the KGB and the unusually long periods he spent in study, mainly in the KGB. but also with the University of Marxism-Leninism and the Diplomatic School, make the author uniquely qualified as a citizen of the West to write about the subjects covered in this book.
He was born near Poltava, in the Ukraine, in 1926. He was thus brought up as a member of the postrevolutionary generation. From 1933 onward he lived in Moscow. He joined the communist youth movement (Komsomol) at the age of fifteen while he was a cadet in military school. He became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in 1945 while studying at the artillery school for officers at Odessa.
In the same year he entered military counterintelligence. On graduation from the Moscow school of military counterespionage in 1946, he joined the Soviet intelligence service. While working in its headquarters he attended evening classes at the University of Marxism-Leninism, from which he graduated in 1948. From 1948 to 1950 he studied in the counterintelligence faculty of the High Intelligence School; also, between 1949 and 1952 he completed a correspondence course with the High Diplomatic School.
In 1952 and early 1953 he was involved, with a friend, in drawing up a proposal to the Central Committee on the reorganization of Soviet intelligence. The proposal included suggestions on the strengthening of counterintelligence, on the wider use of the satellite intelligence services, and on the reintroduction of the "activist style" into intelligence work. In connection with this proposal, he attended a meeting of the Secretariat chaired by Stalin and a meeting of the Presidium chaired by Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Bulganin.
For three months in 1952-52 the author worked as a head of section in the department of the Soviet intelligence service responsible for counterintelligence service responsible for counterespionage against the United States. In 1953 he was posted to Vienna, where he served for two years under cover as a member of the apparat of the Soviet High Commission. For the first year he worked against Russian emigres, and for the second against British intelligence. In 1954 he was elected to be a deputy secretary of the party organization in the KGB residency in Vienna, numbering seventy officers. On return to Moscow he attended the KGB Institute, now the KGB Academy, as a full-time student for four years, graduation from there with a law degree in 1959. As a student of the institute and a s party member, he was will placed to follow the power struggle in the Soviet leadership that was reflected in secret party letters, briefings, and conferences.
From 1959 to 1060, at a time when a new long-range policy for the bloc was being formulated and the KGB was being reorganized to play its part in it, he served as a senior analyst in the NATO section of the Information Department of the Soviet intelligence service. He was then transferred to Finland, where, under cover as vice-consul in the Soviet embassy in Helsinki, he worked on counterintelligence matters until his break with the regime in December 1961.
By 1956 he was already beginning to be disillusioned with the Soviet system. The Hungarian events of that year intensified his disaffection. He concluded that the only practical way to fight the regime was from abroad and that, armed with his inside knowledge of the KGB, he would be able to do so effectively. Having his decision, be began systematically to elicit and commit to memory information that he thought would be relevant and valuable to the West. The adoption of the new aggressive long-range communist policy precipitated his decision to break with the regime. He felt that the necessity of warning the West of the new dimensions of that threat that it was facing justified him in abandoning his country and facing the personal sacrifices involved. His break with the regime was a deliberate and long-premeditated political act. Immediately on his arrival in the United States, he sought to convey a warning to the highest authorities in the U.S. government on the new political dangers to the Western world stemming from the harnessing of all the political resources of the communist bloc, including its intelligence and security services, to the new long-range policy.
From 1962 onward the author devoted a large proportion of his time to the study of communist affairs as an outside observer reading both the communist and Western press. He began work on this book. While working on the book he continued to bring to the attention of American and other Western authorities his views on the issues considered in it, and in 1968 allowed American and British officials to read the manuscript as it then stood. emphasis mine Although the manuscript has since been enlarged to cover the events of the last decade and revised as the underlying communist strategy became clearer to the author, the substance of the argument has changed little since 1968. Owing to the length of the manuscript, a substantial part of it has been held over for publication at a later date.
With few exceptions, those Western officials who were aware of the views expressed in the manuscript, especially on the Sino-Soviet split, rejected them. In fact, over the years it became increasingly clear to the author that there was no reasonable hope of his analysis of communist affairs being seriously considered in Western official circles. At the same time, he became further convinced that events continued to confirm the validity of his analysis, that the threat from international communism was not properly understood, and that this threat would shortly enter a new and more dangerous phase. The author therefore decided to publish his work with the intention of alerting a wider sector of world public opinion to the dangers as he sees them, in the hope of stimulating a new approach to the study of communism and of provoking a more coherent, determined and effective response to it by those who remain interested in the preservation of free societies in the noncommunist world.
In order to give effect to his decision to publish, the author asked the four of us, all former U.S. or British government officials for editorial advice and help. Three of us have known the author and his views for twelve years or more. We can testify to his Sisphean efforts to convince others of the validity of what he has to say. We have the highest regard for his personal and professional integrity. The value of his services to national security has been officially recognized by more than one government in the West. Despite the rejection of his views by many of our former colleagues, we continue to believe that the contents of this book are of the greatest importance and relevance to a proper understanding of contemporary events. We were, therefore, more than willing to respond to the author's requests for help in editing his manuscript for publication, and we commend the book for the most serious study by all who are interested in relations between the communist and noncommunist worlds.
The preparation of the manuscript has been undertaken by the author with the help of each of us, acting in an individual and private capacity.
The author is a citizen of the United States of America and an Honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE).
Author's Note
This book is the product of nearly twenty years of my life. It presents my convictions that, throughout that period, the West has misunderstood the nature of changes in the communist world and has been misled and out maneuvered by communist guile. My researches have not only strengthened by belief, but have led me to a new methodology by which to analyze communist actions. This methodology takes into account the dialectical character of communist strategic thinking. It is my hope theat the methodology will come to be used by students of communist affairs throughout the Western World.
I accept sole responsibility for the contents of the book. In writing it, I have received no assistance of any kind from any government or other organization. I submitted the text to the appropriate US authorities, who raised no objection to its publication on grounds of national security....
********************************************************
Part I
The Two Methodologies
Part II
***********************************************************
Cordially,
So, just HOW did he get ahold of this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.