Sakharov, Golitsyn and East-West Convergence towards World Government (World Federalism)
by Peter Myers
Date February 22, 2002; update July 10, 2020
My comments are shown {thus}.
Write to me at contact.html.
You are at http://mailstar.net/convergence.html .
Gorbachev got rid of the totalitarian aspects of Communism, leaving the good side, eg full employment and a publicly owned economy (no oligarchs). But, anticipating a deal with the West to form a World Government (World Peace, a nuclear-free world), he dismantled the Soviet Union. The West betrayed him, sending advisers who destroyed the Russian economy.
The Soviet ruble of the period 196191 maintained a constant exchange rate at 40 kopeks per Pound sterling. In 1985 it bought 92 US cents, ranging to 56 US cents in 1991 (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ruble). After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Ruble collapsed. Unemployment soared, industries were scrapped, and millions of Russians died. The West, which had for so long preached "Human Rights" to the Soviet block, showed little care for the misery it caused by sending in economists advocating Shock Therapy, such as Jeffrey Sachs. The West also kept invading one former Soviet ally after another (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria), and moved the NATO boundary further east, contrary to promises made to Gorbachev. Russians feel betrayed, and blame Gorbachev for selling out to the West.
Gorbachev followed Andrei Sakharov's ideas on East-West Convergence towards World Government (World Federalism).
Anatoliy Golitsyn garbled the story.
Convergence was a Zionist/Globalist/Trotskyist idea first articulated by H. G. Wells in his book The Open Conspiracy (1928 & 1933): opencon.html. The aim was to seize control of the USSR from the Stalinists, while securing the West for "Marxist" values as enacted in the early Bolshevik period: Gay Rights, Feminism, the abolition of Marriage, cultural revolution, minorities against the majority.
In Russia, Putin foiled their plans.
In the West, Political Correctness is the new Gulag. It was brought to America by Trotskyists and other admirers of Early Bolshevism.
(1) Introduction
(2) Andrei Sakharov, Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom
(3) George Bailey, The Making of Andrei Sakharov
(4) Yuri Slezkine on Soviet "Multiculturalism", i.e. "minority
nationalities" policy
(5) Gorbachev follows Sakharov's Path
(6) Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies For Old
(7) How Golitsyn's Ideas Are Being Taken Up in the United States
(8) How Golitsyn garbled the story
(9) Cohn-Bendit's Manifesto for a Green Communist EU, inspired by Trotsky
- Václav Klaus
(10) Democrats of Europe, wake up! - Manifest initiated by the Former President
of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus
(10) Summary
(1) Introduction
From the Bolshevik Revolution on, the Communist movement has been polarised into two camps: a camp of covert Jewish domination - by non-theistic Jews (philos.html) - and a camp rejecting the idea that Jews represent the Working Class, or however else "the People" is defined.
The Bolshevik Jews were not "all Jews" or "Jews per se", any more than the Catholic destroyers of Inca South America were "all Catholics"; but they were Jews.
There is nothing in Marxist theory that says that Jews will lead the Revolution and run the new government. Yet that is what happened in the USSR: russell.html; but the knowledge of this was suppressed. This camp became the Trotskyist camp. Even though the Trotskyist camp make anti-Zionist noises, and probably oppose the extremes of Zionism, they are nevertheless secretly pro-Zionist: lenin-trotsky.html.
Stalin gained power using similar covert methods to his opponents - not announcing his intentions but just implementing them. He saw the Jewish domination as an alien coup, and saw himself as representing the genuine Russians in their quest for socialism.
Yet, he relied heavily on Jewish party members, both cabinet members like Beria and Lazar Kaganovich and field workers like the Jews staffing the Cheka. Stalin's third and last wife was Rosa Kaganovich, sister of Lazar and a Jew.
Stalin had Trotsky killed; yet he himself was later killed by Kaganovich, Rosa and others - the Jewish camp: death-of-stalin.html.
Who is a Trotskyist? Not just card-carrying Party members; rather, anyone who venerates Trotsky counts as a Trotskyist.
While Stalin was in power, the Trotskyists in the Soviet Union had to lie low. After Stalin's removal, Beria released many political prisoners, no doubt Trotskyists among them: beria.html.
Anatoliy Golitsyn, in his book New Lies For Old, explains that Beria had a new policy: he wanted to let East Germany reunite with West. In his early months of power, there was a flood of refugees from East Germany to the West, panicking the Party leaders. In consequence, they deposed him and installed Khrushchev, who had Beria executed (pp. 29-32).
Khruschev denounced Stalin in 1956 to scapegoat him and save the honour of the Party; but the denunciation backfired, leading to uprisings in Hungary and Poland, as a result of which Khruschev partially returned to Stalinist methods.
Beria's policy can be seen as a forerunner of Gorbachev's, and similar to the vision of David Ben Gurion in 1962, when he predicted World Government by 1987. Ben Gurion saw Eastern Europe being torn from the USSR and joined with Western Europe; and China (Mao's China) and Japan joining the US in what seems the first published depiction of APEC: writing in LOOK magazine, Jan. 16, 1962: bengur62.jpg.
Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, invited in 1962 to predict what the world would be like in 25 years' time, wrote:
"The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligensia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnanacy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years."
Isaac Deutscher wrote in his book The non-Jewish Jew and other essays, ed. Tamara Deutscher, OUP, London, 1968:
{p. 98} Ben Gurion had no sooner welcomed me than he launched out on a lecture on the Russian revolution - the topic obviously fascinated him:
'One man', he said, 'could have saved the world, but, unfortunately,
he missed his opportunity. That man was Lenin.'
{endquote}
Andrei Sakharov put a similar scenario to Ben Gurion, in books published in the West in the late 1960s and early 1970s, gaining a reputation as one of the Soviet Union's leading dissidents. Yet there was a great difference between his view and that of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Solzhenitsyn repudiated the entire regime, from the time of Lenin on, denouncing Lenin as the originator of all the evils; whereas Sakharov proclaimed himself a Marxist, and shielded Lenin from blame. He seems to make no mention of Trotsky, but it can be inferred that he was in the Trotskyist camp.
Sakharov was officially pardoned on December 9, 1986, soon after Gorbachev gained power, as shown in the following KGB file: http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/BUK/GBARC/pdfs/sakharov/kgb86-2.pdf.
But treason charges against Solzhenitsyn were only dropped in September 1991, after Gorbachev fell in August 1991. After the dropping of charges, Solzhenitsyn announced that he would return to Russia. The New York Times reported as follows:
THE SOVIET TRANSITION; Soviets Drop Solzhenitsyn Treason Charges
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL Published: September 18, 1991
{quote}
The chief prosecutor of the Soviet Union said today that he was dropping
treason charges against Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, removing the last
legal obstacle for the Russian writer to return to his homeland after 17
years in exile.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn, living in exile in Vermont, has said he will return after charges were dropped. But he indicated today that he would not return to Russia immediately.
Mr. Solzhenitsyn, whose writings and dissident activities had drawn the wrath of President Leonid I. Brezhnev, was charged with treason in 1974 and expelled from the Soviet Union before his case was brought to trial. He has been living since in Cavendish, Vt.
Today, the Soviet news agency Tass said in a report from Moscow that the Prosecutor General, Nikolai Trubin, had reviewed the case against Mr. Solzhenitsyn and concluded that "there is no evidence" that he "has committed any crime."
Tass said, "Trubin dismissed the case."
Natalya Solzhenitsyn, the writer's wife, said in a telephone interview
from Cavendish today that Mr. Solzhenitsyn had not yet been notified formally
of the Prosecutor General's decision, but had been sent a copy of the Tass
dispatch by the agency's office in New York.
{endquote}
During Yeltsin's eight years of chaos, Solzhenitsyn came to side with the upholders of order, and seems to have endorsed Putin; Putin, on winning the Presidential election, visited him, in what amounted to a mutual endorsement.
Sakharov, like Ben Gurion, worked for Convergence between the Soviet Union and the West, resulting in the formation of a World Government (a World Confederation). This meant seizing control of the Soviet Union from the Stalinist faction, and restoring it to the Trotskyist faction.
But for the USSR to dock with the West, the United States had to have a Government brimming with Fabian World Federalists - such as the Clinton Government. Just before leaving office, Bill Clinton signed a raft of legislation, including endorsement of the World Court, which George W. Bush annulled on taking power.
When the USSR fell in 1991, however, the United States was run by the Republican Party, and Britain by the Tories, who were in no mood to share power. From the time when Zbigniew Brzezinsky was National Security Adviser in the late 1970s, the United States had pursued a policy of covert guerilla war against the USSR, organizing the Moslems in Afghanistan and the Catholics in Poland in their conflicts with the USSR.
What of Gorbachev? He pursued many of Sakharov's policies, condemned Stalin, spoke highly of Lenin, and wrote repeatedly about a World Civilization; this suggests that he is in the Zionist/Globalist/Trotskyist camp.
Early in his Presidency, he e rehabilitated Bukharin, to be a model for his pro-Market reforms as well as his anti-Stalinism: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/08/20/Trotsky-in-afterlife/a0bcdac2-4f42-4293-b0a4-ddbe9b866344/.
He allowed Trotsky's books to be published, but gave an anti-Trotsky speech on November 2, 1987, to mark the 70th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, in which he said, ""Trotsky and the Trotskyites negated the possibility of building socialism in conditions of capitalist encirclement. In foreign policy they gave priority to export of revolution, and in home policy to tightening the screws on the peasants, to the city exploiting the countryside, and to administrative and military fiat in running society. ": https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/05/lec1-m09.html.
However, Gorbachev could not come out publicly as a Trotskyist. Russians regarded Trotskyism as a heresy; even in 2017, the centenary of the Revolution, there was no support for Trotsky. Russians know that Stalin defeated the Bolshevik Jews who imposed the Red Terror, even though such facts are suppressed in the West.
Admittedly, Gorbachev allowed more freedom than one would expect of a Trotskyist, and was a gentler, kinder person. He was not DIRECTLY a Trotskyist, but INDIRECTLY he was, via Sakharov. It's Sakharov's defence of early Bolshevism, rejection of Stalin, and aspiration for World Government, which marks him as a Trotskyist. Gorbachev followed his line.
This photo of Gorbachev is from a large book of photos about life in the USSR (1987): GorbachevShevardnadze.jpg. It's also at GorbachevShevardnadze.gif.
The caption reads:
{quote} General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev leans on his desk as he and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze await the arrival of French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac. May 15th was a busy day for the General Secretary, who commutes from his home on the western outskirts of Moscow to his Kremlin office between 9 and 10 in the morning and stays until 8 p.m. Gorbachev's vigorour style takes him on the road more often than his predecessors, making him unusally visible for a Soviet leader. Private portrats are extremely rare, however, and veteran Soviet photographer Yuri Abramochkin was given only 90 seconds to capture this image.
{end} from: A Day in the Life of the Soviet Union, 1987, Collins Publishers.
It's much more personal than other photos of world leaders. It shows Gorbachev's own desk - his intimate space - and it looks very simple & humble, considering that he was the leader of a superpower.
Gorbachev says (item 5 below) that his aim was to "transfer power to the Soviets". This meant taking power from the Communist Party (CPSU) and giving it to the parliaments (soviets, i.e. elected councils). It's what Daniel Cohn-Bendit called for in 1968, in his book Obsolete Communism: the Left-Wing Alternative. Cohn-Bendit was called "Dany the Red", and later became a Green politician, but even in 1968, despite the "Green" and "Anarchist" labels, he was a Marxist:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/low/dates/stories/june/11/newsid_3003000/3003831.stm
BBC News, June 11, 1968
French student rebel arrives in UK
French student rebel leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit has arrived in Britain stirring up fears of campus unrest. [...]
In Context {On this Day} Daniel Cohn-Bendit's stay in Britain was extended
to 14 days during which time he and a group of supporters visited Karl
Marx's grave where they sang the protest song Internationale.
{endquote}
The Marxist movement operated in the West mainly through its Fabian wing, with Greens as an avant garde; the Greens, in turn, co-operated with Trotskyists and Anarchists. For Convergence to occur, the Fabians had to be in power in the West, and the Trotskyists/Greens in the East.
In the West, the Fabians operated in the circles of power, as Labor/Labour/Democratic Governments and "Liberal" factions in the "Conservative" parties, while the Trotskyists largely ran the student bodies at universities, and organised demonstrations of school children, gay activists, native minorities and radical feminists - they were the shock troops and avant garde.
This poster illustrates how the Trots manipulated Feminism: a Democratic Socialist Party poster in Canberra: dspwomen.jpg.
Although their stated aim is equality, they want to delay Socialism until Capitalism has reduced the world to one single country. To that end, they promote Free Trade, even though the competition that results destroys workers' jobs and lowers wages: classwar.html.
(2) Andrei Sakharov, Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom (Penguin Books, Hartmondsworth, 1976; first published 1968).
Sakharov proclaims himself a Marxist & Leninist, expounds Marxism as a Scientific Principle, equates Stalin to Hitler, and sets out a program of Convergence towards World Government that seems similar to the path Gorbachev later pursued.
Although Sakharov makes no mention of Trotsky, he is clearly a Trotskyist. His talk of "racism", "militarism" and "bureaucracy" is classic Trotskyist jargon.
{p. 21} General statement
THE views of the author were formed in the milieu of the scientific and scientific-technological intelligentsia, which manifests much anxiety over the principles and specific aspects of foreign and domestic policy and over the future of mankind. This anxiety is nourished, in particular, by a realization that the scientific method of directing policy, the economy, arts, education, and military affairs still has not become a reality. {i.e. the Marxist utopia has noit been achieved}
We regard as 'scientific' a method based on deep analysis of facts, theories, and views, presupposing unprejudiced, unfearing open discussion and conclusions. The complexity and diversity of all the phenomena of modern life, the great possibilities and dangers linked with the scientific-technical revolution and with a number of social tendencies demand precisely such an approach, as has been acknowledged in a number of official statements.'
In this essay, advanced for discussion, the author has set himself the goal to present, with the greatest conviction and frankness, two theses that are supported by many people in the world. The theses relate to the destruction threatened by the division of mankind and the need for intellectual freedom.
{p. 23} 'The Division of Mankind Threatens it with Destruction'
{Division into independent countries, i.e. anything short of World Government}
THE division of mankind threatens it with destruction. Civilization is imperilled by: a universal thermonuclear war, catastrophic hunger for rnost of mankind, stupefaction from the narcotic of 'mass culture', and bureaucratized dogmatism, a spreading of mass myths that put entire peoples and continents under the power of cruel and treacherous demagogues, and destruction or degeneration from the unforseeable consequences of swift changes in the conditions of life on our planet.
In the face of these perils, any action increasing the division of mankind, any preaching of the incompatibility of world ideologies and nations is madness and a crime. Only universal cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral ideals of socialism and labour, accompanied by the elimination of dogmatism and pressures of the concealed interests of ruling classes, will preserve civilization.
{Unlike those who see Communism as destructive of all the world's Civilizations, Sakharov portrays it as the struggle to save Civilization}
The reader will understand that ideological collaboration cannot apply to those fanatical, sectarian, and extremist ideologies that reject all possibility of rapprochement, discussion, and compromise, for example, the ideologies of Fascist, racist, militaristic, and Maoist demagogy.
{Sakharov castigates Maoism; Trotskyists were divided over it}
Millions of people throughout the world are striving to put an end to poverty. They despise oppression,
{p. 24} dogmatism, and demagogy (and their more extreme manifestations - racism, Fascism, Stalinism, and Maoism). They believe in progress based on the use, under conditions of social justice and intellectual freedom, of all the positive experience accumulated by mankind.
{p. 25} 'Intellectual Freedom is Essential'
The second basic thesis is that intellectual freedom is essential to human society - freedom to obtain and distribute information, freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate and freedom from pressure by officialdom and prejudices. Such a trinity of freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorship. Freedom of thought is the only guarantee of the feasibility of a scientific democratic approach to politics, economy, and culture.
But freedom of thought is under a triple threat in modern society- from the opium of mass culture, from cowardly, egotistic and narrow-minded ideologies, and from the ossified dogmatism of a bureaucratic ol g rchy and its favourite weapon, ideological censorship. Therefore, freedom of thought requires the defence of all thinking and honest people. This is a mission not only for the intelligentsia but for all strata of society, particularly its most active and organized stratum, the working class. The worldwide dangers of war, famine, cults of personality, and bureaucracy - these are perils for all of mankind.
{But does Sakharov's freedom extend to those who, like me, show that the Soviet Union was created by Jews? By Jews portraying themselves as the representatives of the working Class? If not, then his Freedom is a sham. Did not Lenin and Trotsky establish the repressive regime & Red Terror? Why has Sakharov nothing ill to say of them?}
Recognition by the working class and the intelligentsia of their common interests has been a striking phenomenon of the present day. The most progressive internationalist, and dedicated element of the intelligentsia
{p. 26} Vietnam and The Middle East
{On the Vietnam War, Sakharov shows himself a Communist, whereas Solzhenitsyn supported the anti-Communists}
IN Vietnam, the forces of reaction, lacking hope for an expression of national will in their favour, are using the force of military pressure. They are violating all legal and moral norms and are carrying out flagrant crimes against humanity. An entire people is being sacrificed to the proclaimed goal of stopping the 'Communist tide '.
{But in the Middle East, Sakharov shows himself a Zionist. The 1967 war is called "the preventive six-day war; the word "preventive" justifiyies Israel's starting that war; the Arabs are called "merciless"}
{p. 35} Thus in 1948, Israel waged a defensive war. But in 1956, the actions of Israel appeared reprehensible. The preventive six-day war in the face of threats of destruction by merciless, numerically vastly superior forces of the Arab coalition could have been justifiable. But the cruelty to refugees and prisoners of war and the striving to settle territorial questions by military means must be condemned. Despite this condemnation, the breaking of relations with Israel appears a mistake, complicating a peaceful settlement in this region and complicating a necessary diplomatic recognition of Israel by the Arab governments.
In our opinion, certain changes must be made in the conduct of international affairs, systematically subordinating all concrete aims and local tasks to the basic task of actively preventing an aggravation of the international situation, of actively pursuing and expanding peaceful coexistence to the level of cooperation, of making policy in such a way that its immediate and long-range effects will in no way sharpen international tensions and will not create difficulties for either side that would strengthen the forces of reaction, militarism, nationalism, Fascism, and revanchism.
International affairs must be completely permeated with scientific methodology and a democratic spirit,
{p. 38} International policy does not aim at exploiting local, specific conditions to widen zones of influence and create difficulties for another country. The goal of international policy is to ensure universal fulfilment of the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man' and to prevent a sharpening of international tension and a strengthening of militarist and nationalist tendencies.
Such a set of principles would in no way be a betrayal of the revolutionary and national liberation struggle, the struggle against reaction and counter-revolution. On the contrary, with the elimination of all doubtful cases, it would be easier to take decisive action in those extreme cases of reaction, racism, and militarism that allow no course other than armed struggle. A strengthening of peaceful coexistence would create an opportunity to avert such tragic events as those in Greece and Indonesia.
Such a set of principles would present the Soviet armed forces with a precisely defined defensive mission, a mission of defending our country and our allies from aggression. As history has shown, our people and their armed forces are unconquerable when they are defending their homeland and its great social and cultural achievements.
{p. 39} Hunger and Overpopulation (and the Psychology of Racism)
SPECIALISTS are paying attention to a growing threat of hunger in the poorer half of the world. Although the fifty per cent increase of the world's population in the last thirty years has been accompanied by a seventy per cent increase in food production, the balance in the poorer half of the world has been unfavourable. The situation in India, Indonesia, in a number of countries of Latin America, and in a large number of other underdeveloped countries - the absence of technical-economic reserves, competent officials, and cultural skills, social backwardness, a high birthrate - all this systematically worsens the food balance and without doubt will continue to worsen it in the coming years. ...
What is involved is a prognosticated deterioration of the average food balance in which localized food crises merge into a sea of hunger, intolerable suffering and desperation, the grief and fury of millions of people.
{p. 41} Changes in the economic situation of underdeveloped countries would solve the problem of high birthrates with relative ease, as has been shown by the experience
{p. 42} of developed countries, without the barbaric method of sterilization.
Certain changes in the policies, viewpoints, and traditions on this delicate question are inescapable in the advanced countries as well. Mankind can develop smoothly only if it looks upon itself in a demographic sense as a unit, a single family without divisions into nations other than in matters of history and traditions.
Therefore, government policy, legislation on the family and marriage, and propaganda should not encourage an increase in the birthrates of advanced countries while demanding that it be curtailed in underdeveloped countries that are receiving assistance. Such a two-faced game would produce nothing but bitterness and nationalism.
In conclusion on that point, I want to emphasize that the question of regulating birthrates is highly complex and that any standardized, dogmatic solution 'for all time and all peoples' would be wrong. All the foregoing, incidentally, should be accepted with the reservation that it is somewhat of a simplification.
{p. 43} Pollution of Environment
WE live in a swiftly changing world. Industrial and water-engineering projects, cutting of forests, ploughing up of virgin lands, the use of poisonous chemicals - all this is changing the face of the earth, our 'habitat'.
{Sakharov is a Green, as Gorbachev was to become}
Scientific study of all the interrelationships in nature and the consequences of our interference clearly lag behind the changes. Large amounts of harmful wastes of industry and transport are being dumped into the air and water, including cancer-inducing substances. Will the safe limit be passed everywhere, as has already happened in a number of places?
Carbon dioxide from the burning of coal is altering the heat-reflecting qualities of the atmosphere. Sooner or later, this will reach a dangerous level. But we do not know when. Poisonous chemicals used in agriculture are penetrating the body of man and animal directly and in more dangerous modified compounds, are causing serious damage to the brain, the nervous system, bloodforming organs, the liver, and other organs. Here, too, the safe limit can be easily crossed but the question has not been fully studied and it is difficult to control all these processes.
The use of antibiotics in poultry-raising has led to the development of new disease-causing microbes that are resistant to antibiotics.
I could also mention the problems of dumping detergents and radioactive wastes, erosion and salinization of soils, the flooding of meadows, the cutting of forests on
{p. 44} mountain slopes and in watersheds, the destruction of birds and other useful wildlife like toads and frogs, and many other examples of senseless despoliation caused by local, temporary, bureaucratic, and egotistical interest and sometimes simply by questions of bureaucratic prestige, as in the sad fate of Lake Baikal.
{A theme taken up by Gorbachev}
The problem of geohygiene (earth hygiene) is highly complex and closely tied to economic and social problems. This problem can therefore not be solved on a national and especially not on a local basis. The salvation of our environment requires that we overcome our divisions and the pressure of temporary, local interests. Otherwise, the Soviet Union will poison the United States with its wastes and vice versa. At present, this is a hyperbole. But with a ten per cent annual increase of wastes, the increase over 100 years will be multiplied 20,000 times.
{p. 45} AN extreme reflection of the dangers confronting modern social development is the growth of racism, nationalism, and militarism and, in particular, the rise of demagogic, hypocritical, and monstrously cruel dictatorial police regimes. Foremost are the regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse-tung, and a number of extremely reactionary regimes in smaller countries, such as Spain, Portugal, South Africa, Greece, Albania, Haiti, and other Latin American countries.
These tragic developments have always derived from the struggle of egotistical and group interests, the struggle for unlimited power, suppression of intellectual freedom, a spread of intellectually simplified, narrow-minded mass myths (the myth of race, of land and blood, the myth about the Jewish danger, anti-intellectualism, the concept of lebensraum in Germany, the myth about the sharpening of the class struggle and proletarian infallibility bolstered by the cult of Stalin and by exaggeration of the contradictions with capitalism in the Soviet Union, the myth about Mao Tse-tung, extreme Chinese nationalism and the resurrection of the lebensraum concept, of anti-intellectualism, extreme antihumanism, and certain prejudices of peasant socialism in China).
The usual practice is the use of demagogy, storm troopers, and Red Guards in the first stage and terrorist bureaucracy with reliable cadres of the type of Eichmann, Himmler, Yezhov, and Beria at the summit of deification of unlimited power.
{p. 46} The world will never forget the burning of books in the squares of German cities, the hysterical, cannibalistic speeches of the Fascist 'fuehrers', and their even more cannibalistic plans for the destruction of entire peoples, including the Russians. Fascism began a partial realization of these plans during the war it unleashed, annihilating prisoners of war and hostages, burning villages, carrying out a criminal policy of genocide (during the war, the main blow of genocide was aimed at the Jews, a policy that apparently was also meant to be provocative, especially in the Ukraine and Poland).
We shall never forget the kilometre-long trenches filled with bodies, the gas chambers, the S.S. dogs, the fanatical doctors, the piles of women's hair, suitcases with gold teeth, and fertilizer from the factories of death.
Analyzing the causes of Hitler's coming to power, we will never forget the role of German and international monopolist capital. We also will not forget the criminally sectarian and dogmatically narrow policies of Stalin and his associates, setting Socialists and Communists against one another (this has been well related in the famous letter to Ilya Ehrenburg by Ernst Henri).
Fascism lasted twelve years in Germany. Stalinism lasted twice as long in the Soviet Union. There are many common features but also certain differences. Stalinism exhibited a much more subtle kind of hypocrisy and demagogy, with reliance not on an openly cannibalistic programme like Hitler's but on a progressive, scientific, and popular socialist ideology.
{What of Lenin and Trotsky? What of their Genocides too?}
This served as a convenient screen for deceiving the working class, for weakening the vigilance of the intellectuals and other rivals in the struggle for power, with the treacherous and sudden use of the machinery of torture, execution, and informants, intimidating and mak-
{p. 47} ing fools of millions of people, the majority of whom were neither cowards nor fools. As a consequence of this 'specific feature' of Stalinism, it was the Soviet people, its most active, talented, and honest representatives, who suffered the most terrible blow.
At least 10 to 15 million people perished in the torture chambers of the N.K.V.D. [secret police] from torture and execution, in camps for exiled kulaks [rich peasants] and so-called semi-kulaks and members of their families and in camps 'without the right of correspondence' (which were in fact the prototypes of the Fascist death camps where, for example, thousands of prisoners were machine-gunned because of 'overcrowding' or as a result of 'special orders').
People perished in the mines of Norilsk and Vorkuta from freezing, starvation, and exhausting labour, at countless construction projects, in timber-cutting, building of canals, or simply during transportation in prison trains, in the overcrowded holds of 'death ships' in the Sea of Okhotsk, and during the resettlement of entire peoples, the Crimean Tatars, the Volga Germans, the Kalmyks, and other Caucasus peoples. Readers of the literary journal Novy Mir recently could read for themselves a description of the 'road of death' between Norilsk and Igarka [in northern Siberia].
Temporary masters were replaced (Yagoda, Molotov, Yezhov, Zhdanov, Malenkov, Beria), but the antipeople's regime of Stalin remained equally cruel and at the same time dogmatically narrow and blind in its cruelty. The killing of military and engineering officials before the war, the blind faith in the 'reasonableness' of the colleague in crime, Hitler, and the other reasons for the national tragedy of 1941 have been well described in the book by Nekrich, in the notes of Maj. Gen.
{p. 48} Grigorenko, and other publications - these are far from the only examples of the combination of crime, narrowmindedness, and short-sightedness.
Stalinist dogmatism and isolation from real life was demonstrated particularly in the countryside, in the policy of unlimited exploitation and the predatory forced deliveries at 'symbolic' prices, in almost serflike enslavement of the peasantry, the depriving of peasants of the most simple means of mechanization, and the appointment of collective-farm chairmen on the basis of their cunning and obsequiousness. The results are evident - a profound and hard-to-correct destruction of the economy and way of life in the countryside, which, by the law of interconnected vessels, damaged industry as well.
The inhuman character of Stalinism was demonstrated by the repressions of prisoners of war who survived Fascist camps and then were thrown into Stalinist camps, the anti-worker 'decrees', the criminal exile of entire peoples condemned to slow death, the unenlightened zoological kind of anti-Semitism that was characteristic of Stalinist bureaucracy and the N.K.V.D. (and Stalin personally), the Ukrainophobia characteristic of Stalin, and the draconian laws for the protection of socialist property (five years' imprisonment for stealing some grain from the fields and so forth) that served mainly as a means of fulfilling the demands of the ' slave market').
A profound analysis of the origin and development of Stalinism is contained in the 1,000-page monograph of R. Medvedev. This was written from a socialist, Marxist point of view {Trotskyist jargon} and is a successful work, but unfortunately it has not yet been published. The present author is not likely to receive such a compliment from
{p. 49} Comrade Medvedev, who finds elements of 'Westernism' in his views. Well, there is nothing like controversy! Actually the views of the present author are profoundly socialist, and he hopes that the attentive reader will understand this.
The author is quite aware of the monstrous relations in human and international affairs brought forth by the egotistical principle of capital when it is not under pressure from socialist and progressive forces. He also thinks, however, that progressives in the West understand this better than he does and are waging a struggle against these manifestations. The author is concentrating his attention on what is before his eyes and on what is obstructing, from his point of view, a worldwide overcoming of estrangement, obstructing the struggle for democracy, social progress, and intellectual freedom.
Our country has started on the path of cleansing away the foulness of Stalinism. 'We are squeezing the slave out of ourselves drop by drop' (an expression of Anton Chekhov). We are learning to express our opinions, without taking the lead from the bosses and without fearing for our lives.
The beginning of this arduous and far from straight path evidently dates from the report of Nikita S. Khrushchev to the Twentieth Congress of the Soviet Communist party. This bold speech, which came as a surprise to Stalin's accomplices in crime, and a number of associated measures - the release of hundreds of thousands of political prisoners and their rehabilitation, steps towards a revival of the principles of peaceful coexistence and towards a revival of democracy - oblige us to value highly the historic role of Khrushchev despite his regrettable mistakes of a voluntarist character in subsequent years and despite the fact that Khrushchev, while
{p. 50} Stalin was alive, was one of his collaborators in crime, occupying a number of influential posts.
The exposure of Stalinism in our country still has a long way to go. It is imperative, of course, that we publish all authentic documents, including the archives of the N.K.V.D., and conduct nationwide investigations. It would be highly useful for the international authority of the Soviet Communist party and the ideals of socialism if, as was planned in 1964 but never carried out, the party were to announce the 'symbolic' expulsion of Stalin, murderer of millions of party members, and at the same time the political rehabilitation of the victims of Stalinism. {Trotsky perhaps?}
In 1936-9 alone more than 1.2 million party members, half of the total membership, were arrested. Only 50,000 regained freedom; the others were tortured during interrogation or were shot (600,000) or died in camps. Only in isolated cases were the rehabilitated allowed to assume responsible posts; even fewer were permitted to take part in the investigation of crimes of which they had been witnesses or victims.
We are often told lately not to 'rub salt into wounds'. This is usually being said by people who suffered no wounds. Actually only the most meticulous analysis of the past and of its consequences will now enable us to wash off the blood and dirt that befouled our banner.
It is sometimes suggested in the literature that the political manifestations of Stalinism represented a sort of superstructure over the economic basis of an anti-Leninist pseudosocialism that led to the formation in the Soviet Union of a distinct class - a bureaucratic elite from which all key positions are filled and which is rewarded for its work through open and concealed privileges. I cannot deny that there is some (but not the
{p. 51} whole) truth in such an interpretation, which would help explain the vitality of neo-Stalinism, but a full analysis of this issue would go beyond the scope of this essay, which focuses on another aspect of the problem.
It is imperative that we restrict in every possible way the influence of neo-Stalinists in our political life. Here we are compelled to mention a specific person. One of the most influential representatives of neo-Stalinism at the present time is the director of the Science Department of the Communist party's Central Committee, Sergei P. Trapeznikov. The leadership of our country and our people should know that the views of this unquestionably intelligent, shrewd, and highly consistent man are basically Stalinist (from our point of view, they reflect the interests of the bureaucratic elite).
His views differ fundamentally from the dreams and aspirations of the majority and most active section of the intelligentsia, which, in our opinion, reflect the true interests of all our people and progressive mankind. The leadership of our country should understand that as long as such a man (if I correctly understand the nature of his views) exercises influence, it is impossible to hope for a strengthening of the party's position among scientific and artistic intellectuals. An indication of this was given at the last elections in the Academy of Sciences when S. P. Trapeznikov was rejected by a substantial majority of votes, but this hint was not 'understood' by the leadership.
The issue does not involve the professional or personal qualities of Trapeznikov, about which I know little. The issue involves his political views. I have based the foregoing on word-of-mouth evidence.
{p. 54} The Threat to Intellectual Freedom
THIS is a threat to the independence and worth of the human personality, a threat to the meaning of human life.
Nothing threatens freedom of the personality and the meaning of life like war, poverty, terror. But there are also indirect and only slightly more remote dangers.
One of these is the stupefaction of man (the 'grey mass', to use the cynical term of bourgeois prognosticators) by mass culture with its intentional or commercially motivated lowering of the intellectual level and content, with its stress on entertainment or utilitarianism, and with its carefully protective censorship.
Another example is related to the question of education. A system of education under government control, separation of school and church, universal free education - all these are great achievements of social progress. But everything has a reverse side. In this case it is excessive standardization, extending to the teaching process itself, to the curriculum, especially in literature, history, civics, geography, and to the system of examinations.
One cannot but see a danger in excessive reference to authority and in the limitation of discussion and intellectual boldness at an age when personal convictions are beginning to be formed. In the old China, the systems of examinations for official positions led to mental stagnation and to the canonizing of the reactionary aspects of Confucianism. It is highly undesirable to have anything like that in a modern society.
{p. 55} Modern technology and mass psychology constantly suggest new possibilities of managing the norms of behaviour, the strivings and convictions of masses of people. This involves not only management through information based on the theory of advertising and mass psychology, but also more technical methods that are widely discussed in the press abroad. Examples are biochemical control of the birthrate, biochemical control of psychic processes and electronic control of such processes.
It seems to me that we cannot completely ignore these new methods or prohibit the progress of science and technology, but we must be clearly aware of the awesome danger to basic human values and to the meaning of life that may be concealed in the misuse of technical and biochemical methods and the methods of mass psychology.
Man must not be turned into a chicken or a rat as in the well-known experiments in which elation is induced electrically through electrodes inserted into the brain. Related to this is the question of the ever-increasing use of tranquillizers and antidepressants, legal and illegal narcotics, and so forth.
We also must not forget the very real danger mentioned by Norbert Wiener in his book Cybernetics, namely the absence in cynbernetic machines of stable human norms of behaviour. The tempting, unprecedented power that mankind, or, even worse, a particular group in a divided mankind, may derive from the wise counsels of its future intellectual aides, the artificial 'thinking' automata, may become, as Wiener warned, a fatal trap; the counsels may turn out to be incredibly insidious and, instead of pursuing human objectives, may pursue completely abstract problems that had been
{p. 56} transformed in an unforeseen manner in the artificial brain.
Such a danger will become quite real in a few decades if human values, particularly freedom of thought, will not be strengthened, if alienation will not be eliminated.
Let us now return for the dangers of today, to the need for intellectual freedom, which will enable the public at large and the intelligentsia to control and assess all acts, designs, and decisions of the ruling group.
Marx once wrote that the illusion that the 'bosses know everything best' and 'only the higher circles familiar with the official nature of things can pass judgement' was held by officials who equate the public weal with governmental authority.
Both Marx and Lenin always stressed the viciousness of a bureaucratic system as the opposite of a democratic system. Lenin used to say that every cook should learn how to govern. Now the diversity and complexity of social phenomena and the dangers facing mankind have become immeasurably greater; and it is therefore all the more important that mankind be protected against the danger of dogmatic and voluntaristic errors, which are inevitable when decisions are reached in a closed circle of secret advisers or shadow cabinets.
It is no wonder that the problem of censorship (in the broadest sense of the word) has been one of the central issues in the ideological struggle of the last few years. Here is what a progressive American sociologist, Lewis A. Coser, has to say on this point:
It would be absurd to attribute the alienation of many avant-garde authors solely to the battle with the censors; yet one may well maintain that those battles contributed in no
{p. 57} mean measure to such alienation. To these authors, the censor came to be the very symbol of the Philistinism, hypocrisy and meanness of bourgeois society.
Many an author who was initially apolitical was drawn to the political left in the United States because the left was in the forefront of the battle against censorship. The close alliance of avant-garde art with avant-garde political and social radicalism can be accounted for, at least in part, by the fact that they came to be merged in the mind of many as a single battle for freedom against all repression.
(I quote from an article by Igor Kon, published in Novy Mir in January 1968.)
{Igor Kon appears to be a Trotskyist: some quotes of his work are at sex-soviet.html}
We are all familiar with the passionate and closely argued appeal against censorship by the oustanding Soviet writer A. Solzhenitsyn. He, as well as G. Vladimov, G. Svirsky, and other writers who have spoken out on the subject, have clearly shown how incompetent censorship destroys the living soul of Soviet literature; but the same applies, of course, to all other manifestations of social thought, causing stagnation and dullness and preventing fresh and deep ideas.
Such ideas, after all, can arise only in discussion, in the face of objections, only if there is a potential possibility of expressing not only true, but also dubious ideas. This was clear to the philosophers of ancient Greece and hardly anyone nowadays would have any doubts on that score. But after fifty years of complete domination over the minds of an entire nation, our leaders seem to fear even allusions to such a discussion.
At this point we must touch on some disgraceful tendencies that have become evident in the last few years. We will cite only a few isolated examples without trying to create a whole picture. The crippling censorship of Soviet artistic and political literature has again been
{p. 58} intensified. Dozens of brilliant writings cannot see the light of day. They include some of the best of Solzhenitsyn's works, executed with great artistic and moral force and containing profound artistic and philosophical generalizations. Is this not a disgrace? ...
Most political prisoners are now kept in a group of camps in the Mordvinian Republic, where the total number of prisoners, including criminals, is about 50,000. According to available information, the regime has become increasingly severe in these camps, with personnel left over from Stalinist times playing an increasing role. It should be said, in all fairness, that a certain improvement has been noted very recently; it is to be hoped that this turn of events will continue.
The restoration of Leninist principles of public control over places of imprisonment would undoubtedly be a healthy development. Equally important would be a complete amnesty of political prisoners, and not just the recent limited amnesty, which was proclaimed on the fiftieth anniversary of the October Revolution as a
{p. 59} result of a temporary victory of rightist tendencies in our leadership. There should also be a review of all political trials that are still raising doubts among the progressive public. ...
Was it not disgraceful to allow persecution, in the best witch-hunt tradition, of dozens of members of the Soviet intelligentsia who spoke out against the arbitrariness of judicial and psychiatric agencies, to attempt to force honourable people to sign false, hypocritical 'retractions', to dismiss and blacklist people, to deprive young writers, editors, and other
{p. 75} A Four-stage Plan for Cooperation
{Sakharov's Plan for World Government}
HAVING examined in the first part of this essay the development of mankind according to the worse alternative, leading to annihilation, we must now attempt, even schematically, to suggest the better alternative. (The author concedes the primitiveness of his attempts at prognostication, which requires the joint efforts of many specialists, and here, even more than elsewhere, invites positive criticism.)
In the first stage, a growing ideological struggle in the socialist countries between Stalinist and Maoist forces, on the one hand, and the realistic forces of leftist Leninist Communists {i.e. Trotskyists} (and leftist Westerners), on the other, will lead to a deep ideological split on an international, national, and intraparty scale.
In the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, this process will lead first to a multiparty system (here and there) and to acute ideological struggle and discussions, and then to the ideological victory of the realists, affirming the policy of increasing peaceful coexistence, strengthening democracy, and expanding economic reforms (1960-80). The dates reflect the most optimistic unrolling of events.
The author, incidentally, is not one of those who consider the multiparty system to be an essential stage in the development of the socialist system or, even less, a panacea for all ills, but he assumes that in some cases a
{p. 76} multiparty system may be an inevitable consequence of the course of events when a ruling Communist party refuses for one reason or another to rule by the scientific democratic method required by history.
{I.e. Sakharov advocates multiple parties to bring down Stalinism, but after the Trotskyists gain power they would revert to single-party rule}
In the second stage, persistent demands for social progress and peaceful coexistence in the United States and other capitalist countries, and pressure exerted by the example of the socialist countries and by internal progressive forces (the working class and the intelligentsia) will lead to the victory of the leftist reformist wing of the bourgeoisie, which will begin to implement a programme of rapprochement (convergence) with socialism, i.e., social progress, peaceful coexistence, and collaboration with socialism on a world scale and changes in the structure of ownership. This phase includes an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism (1972-85). (The various stages overlap.)
In the third stage, the Soviet Union and the United States, having overcome their alienation, solve the problem of saving the poorer half of the world. The aforementioned twenty per cent tax on the national income of developed countries is applied. Gigantic fertilizer factories and irrigation systems using atomic power will be built [in the developing countries], the resources of the sea will be used to a vastly greater extent, indigenous personnel will be trained, and industrialization will be carried out. Gigantic factories will produce synthetic
{p. 77} amino acids and synthesize proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. At the same time disarmament will proceed (1972-90).
In the fourth stage, the socialist convergence will reduce differences in social structure, promote intellectual freedom, science, and economic progress and lead to the creation of a world government and the smoothing of national contradictions (1980 2000). During this period decisive progress can be expected in the field of nuclear power, both on the basis of uranium and thorium and, probably, deuterium and lithium.
Some authors consider it likely that explosive breeding (the reproduction of active materials such as plutonium, uranium 233 and tritium) may be used in subterranean or other enclosed explosions.
During this period the expansion of space exploration will require thousands of people to work and live continuously on other planets and on the moon, on artificial satellites and on asteroids whose orbits will have been changed by nuclear explosions.
The synthesis of materials that are superconductors at room temperature may completely revolutionize electrical technology, cybernetics, transportation, and communications. Progress in biology (in this and subsequent periods) will make possible effective control and direction of all life processes at the levels of the cell, organism, ecology, and society, from fertility and ageing to psychic processes and heredity.
If such an all-encompassing scientific and technological revolution, promising uncounted benefits for mankind, is to be possible and safe, it will require the greatest possible scientific foresight and care and concern for
{p. 78} human values of a moral, ethical, and personal character. (I touched briefly on the danger of a thoughtless bureaucratic use of the scientific and technological revolution in a divided world in the section on 'Dangers', but could add a great deal more.) Such a revolution will be possible and safe only under highly intelligent worldwide guidance.
The foregoing programme presumes:
(a) worldwide interest in overcoming the present divisions;
(b) the expectation that modifications in both the socialist and capitalist countries will tend to reduce contradictions and differences;
c) worldwide interest of the intelligentsia, the working class, and other progressive forces in a scientific democratic approach to politics, economics, and culture;
d) the absence of insurmountable obstacles to economic development in both world economic systems that might otherwise lead inevitably into a blind alley, despair, and adventurism.
Every honourable and thinking person who has not been poisoned by narrow-minded indifference will seek to ensure that future development will be along the lines of the better alternative. However only broad, open discussion, without the pressure of fear and prejudice, will help the majority to adopt the correct and best course of action. {end of Sakharov quotes}
Note the similarities to David Ben Gurion's 1962 vision of a utopian world in 1987: writing in LOOK magazine, Jan. 16, 1962 (scroll down to see text).
Ben Gurion uses the same jargon as Sakharov: workers, scientists, intelligensia, "men of science", and envisages the same sort of convergence based on similar principles; but Ben Gurion adds a religious element.
In his book BEN-GURION LOOKS AT THE BIBLE (translated by JONATHAN KOLATCH, 1972) bengur-bible.html, he wrote:
"The great Jewish scientists and philosophers of the last few generations - Spinoza, Einstein, Freud, Robert Oppenheimer and others - were natives of Europe and America." (p. 111).
Those "men of science" show up again later:
"from the days of Spinoza to Marx, Freud, Einstein and the rest of the great Jewish scientists" (p. 287),
and in his article in LOOK magazine of January 16, 1962, envisaging a World Government ... "the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy".
Ben Gurion, upholding Marxism of the Trotskyist kind but rejecting Stalinism (because Stalin had stolen the Jewish conspiracy, i.e. returned power to the Russians), was advocating Convergence between the U.S. & the U.S.S.R.
Einstein, Marx and Freud - "great Jewish scientists" - are a "holy trinity" of our time. Einstein's apotheosis is examined at einstein.html.
Sakharov's Jewish wife Elena Bonner continued his activities after his death.
Clearly, Gorbachev was following the path Sakharov enunciated.
(3) George Bailey, The Making of Andrei Sakharov (Allen Lane the Penguin Press, London, 1989).
{p. 129} In 1928 the Soviet government made 'the somewhat grotesque attempt to create a national Jewish home' in Birobidzhan, on the waste borders of China. It may be imagined with what success: in the 1959 census the Jewish population of Birobidzhan numbered 14,000 and made up 9 per cent of the total population of the 'national Jewish home' and less than one half of one per cent of the Jewish population of the Soviet Union.
Because they were rejected by conservatives and, in any case, associated conservatism with their own age-old oppression by the establishment of whatever country they happened to be in, Jews inclined overwhelmingly - and especially in Russia - to the political opposition. In pre-revolutionary Russia Jewish youth provided the cadres of revolutionary parties and organizations in large part. This was especially true of the Bund, which was in a class by itself. The Jewish Social Democratic Union (Bund), although specifically Jewish, was the oldest, most active and for a long while the most effective element of the Russian social democratic movement. 'When the first Zionist congress met in Basel in 1897 and in the same year the first all-Russian congress of the Bund took place,' runs the report, 'giving expression to both national and social radicalism, the enthusiasm aroused among the Jews of Russia was vast and overwhelming.' From the very first, then, the contest between Zionism and Communism was given. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, with his idea of the agrarian production collectives or kibbutzim, was a socialist of the first wafer. The Bund became wholly devoted to Zionism, ultimately providing the leaders and cadres for the founding and building of the state of Israel.
The Bolshevik Party was no exception to the other revolutionary parties: about one half of the Central Committee's members were Jews. All key positions and posts of power within the Central Committee were occupied by Jews. There was Trotsky, the commander and in no small part creator of the Red Army and the political leader second only to Lenin. There was Sverdlov, who headed the regime and was Lenin's right-hand man; Zinoviev, leader of the Comintern and Party boss of Petrograd; Kamenev, Lenin's first deputy in the Council of People's Commissars, manager of the Soviet economy and head of the Moscow Party organization. In the Politburo of 1921 all members excepting only Lenin and Stalin were Jews.
{and Dmitri Volkogonov shows that Lenin himself identified as a Jew: lenin-trotsky.html}
{p. 130} The reason for this extraordinary state of affairs was not only that, to quote a Soviet official, 'formerly we did not have our own intelligentsia, so we had to rely on Jews ...' but also the comparative lack of Russians in the opposition. As Ruth Grigorievna put it: 'When I grew up in Nikolayev at the beginning of the century I met all sorts of exiled political radicals - Jews, Armenians. Ukrainians, Tartars, Georgians, Circassians - any minority you could shake a stick at - but very, very few Russians.'
Came the revolution all this began to change. Those Russians who had been right to be afraid and afraid to be right suddenly or gradually saw their chance and joined the Party. Inevitably this movement changed the membership proportions of the Party: the massive Jewish membership of a small party became a minority in the larger party and conspicuously concentrated at the top of the power structure. At the Fourteenth Party Congress in December of 1925 Stalin removed the Jewish Party leaders from the centres of power. Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev remained in the Central Committee, but only until the next congress, in 1927, when all three were expelled from the Party. After that it was very seldom indeed that a Jew was elected to the Central Committee. The only exception to this rule was an ominous one: Stalin allowed and - it must be assumed - deliberately cultivated the prevalence of Jews in the police - the Cheka, the OGPU and the NKVD - until the mid-thirties. (Yagoda, whom Stalin 'entrusted' with the organization of the Great Purge, himself became a victim of it when Stalin had him shot in 1938.) {end of quotes}
(4) Yuri Slezkine on Soviet "Multiculturalism", i.e. "minority nationalities" policy
The Jewish Century, by Yuri Slezkine (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004)
{p. 246} In the 1920s and early 1930s, Soviet nationality policy consisted in the vigorous promotion of ethnic diversity, ethnic autonomy, and ethnoterritorial institutional consolidation. According to the Party orthodoxy (as formulated by Lenin and Stalin before the revolution), the injustices of the tsarist "prisonhouse of nations" could be overcome only through sensitivity, tact, and various forms of "affirmative action" (to use an apt anachronism). The formerly oppressed peoples felt strongly about their cultural peculiarities because of their history of oppression. The end of that oppression and a pointed promotion of national peculiarities would inevitably lead to the disappearance of national mistrust and as a consequence of undue preoccupation with national peculiarities. As Stalin put it back in 1913, "a minority is discontented ... because it does not have the right to use its native language. Allow it to use its native language and the discontent will pass by itself." The passing of ethnic discontent would result in the demystification of ethnic groups and their ultimate fusion under communism. Nationality, as every Marxist knew, was a facade that concealed the reality of class struggle. Bolshevik multiculturalism was like politeness: nothing was valued as highly and cost as little (or so the Bolsheviks thought). By promoting the "national form," the Party was reinforcing the "socialist content." Diversity was the surest path to unity. The greatest monument to this dialectic was the first ethnoterritorial federation in the history of the world: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The Jews were considered a formerly oppressed Soviet nationality and were treated like all the other formerly oppressed Soviet nationalities (all except the Russians, that is).
{endquote} More at slezkine.html.
(5) Gorbachev follows Sakharov's Path
5.1 From Gorbachev's book Memoirs; 5.2 From Gorbachev's book Perestroika; 5.3 Gorbachev for a World Civilization
5.1 Mikhail Gorbachev, Memoirs, Doubleday, New York 1996
{p. 286} THE BIRTH OF PARLIAMENT
25 May 1989, ten a.m. The Kremlin Palace of Soviets is packed. ...
Indeed, the opening of the Congress of People's Depulies had hardly been announced when it ceased to follow the prepared scenario. ...
The opposition, in the person of its leader, Sakharov, demanded a change in the order for discussion of issues... 'I have many times in my speeches supported the candidacy of Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev,' Sakharov said. 'I maintain this position even now, since I do not see another person who can lead our country. I cannot see this today. My support is therefore conditional. ... Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, who was the initiator of perestroika, whose
{p. 287} name has been linked to the beginning of the proeess of perestroika and the leadership of the country for the last four years, must report on what has happcned in our country during these four years. Hc must spcak about the achicvelllcllls and errors and do so self-critically. Our position will also be dependent on this.' ...
Meanwhile the problem, of course, was not the limited nature of my programme or the indecisiveness ascribed to me as a politician. I never for a minute thought that the transformations I had initiated, no matter how far-reaching, would result in the replacement of the rule of the 'reds' by that of the 'whites'. Indeed, I saw the entire meaning of the reforms in eliminating the very principle of class dictatorship and finally healing the seven-decade-old split in our society, pulling up the roots of the deep civil conflict and creating a constitutional mechanism by which relations between social groups and people were decided, not by head-butting and bloodshed, but rather by politics.
Besidcs, one should bear in mind that I was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Millions of people trusted me in this position and it would have been dishonourable, dishonest, and even criminal simply to defect to the other camp. Even then, as Chairman of the USSR Supreme Soviet and later when I was President, I considered it a matter of principle to promote reforms not by one part of society coercing another, but rather by consensus or, failing that, by compromise.
{p. 296} When I beeame General Secretary, I considered it an important task to rescue Academician Sakharov from exile. Our first meeting took place at the forum that produced the International Foundation for Survival and Development, which was headed by Ye. P. Velikhov and which, in 1991, became one of the founding institutions of the Gorbachev Foundation. ...
{p. 297} As far as Sakharov's role in the Congress is concerned, I would like to mention three key points. First and, perhaps, most important was his speech demanding a declaration that the Congress should take absolute power. The goal was to disavow all existing organs, above all Party organs, to 'pull the plug on them' and to take away their power and functions. One could clearly see that the intention was to settle accounts with the regime and to do away with the monopoly rule of the CPSU in a single stroke. ...
{p. 298} Sakharov's proposal did not stand a chance of being adopted from the very beginning. Moreover, it was illogical flom a legal point of view. According to the amendments that had been made to the USSR Constitution, the USSR Congress of People's Deputies was already the supreme organ of power. So what was the point of proclaiming this again?
Although the demand to proclaim the 'taking of power by the Congress' did not pass, there was nothing wrong in the fact that it had been brought up. ... However, Sakharov's continued activity at the Congress began to cause concern. It was sad to watch how he would, too often, rush up to the podium and indiscriminately squander the respect he commanded on idle issues. Sometimes I had the impression that someone was intentionally setting him up so as to diminish his standing.
I held Sakharov in the highest regard. ... Needless to say, I did not have to accept without reservation everything that originated in the 'democratic corner', but I also did not want to reject out of hand all the ideas coming from them. This could have made people think that I lacked objectivity and was leaning towards the retrograde camp. God knows, I wanted to demonstrate my unbiased attitude in every way possible, whereas Andrei Dmitrievich {Sakharov} kept on 'popping up', and it became more and more difficult for me to calm down the furious delegates.
{Gorbachev frequently uses expressions involving God, as above, without, it seems, any theology intended. Isaac Deutscher, in his book The Great Purges (edited by Tamara Deutscher, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1984), even quotes Lenin as referring to God: "Comrades, ... if any of us were ever to be tempted to settle our differences by means of the guillotine, then God have mercy on us, for no anti-Thermidorian catechism will help us then." (p. 30)}
One day I worked long after the congressional session in my Kremlin office. We were talking over issues that needed to be discussed and the plan of action for the next day. As I was leaving my office around ten p.m., one of the guards told me that Sakharov was waiting for me in the meeting hall. Indeed right next to the stage, in half-shadow, since the chandeliers had been turned off, was the well-known stooping figure.
I do not remember all the details of our talk, but on the whole it was a fairly good conversation. We exchanged our impressions of the Congress's progress. I said that in spite of all the problems, things were moving along and decisions were being made. Questions of rules and procedures were gradually being settled. His assessment was more critical: the dominance of conservatives at the Congress reflected the state of society - still, the democats were working actively and would carry out their mission. 'I am worried by the danger that the nomenklatura will take revenge,'
{p. 299} Sakharov continued. "They are putting pressure oll you too. They threaten to publish certain information unless you do as they wish.'
'What kind of information, what do you mean?'
"That you have taken bribes.'
'Well, what do you think yourself, do you believe this?'
'I, no, but they say ...' and he looked at me with embarrassment.
'This was all the influence of Yeltsin and Gdlyan - it was from this corner that such information was being fed. Sakharov did not want to believe it, but he was secretly anxious that it might be true. This was why he decided to wait and risk asking me directly, face to face. It was elearly his own idea, not something that someone had 'authorized' him to do.
In the following days I had contact with him a number of times for various reasons. I always tried to give him the opportunity to speak. It was embarrassing to see him queuing for the microphone - this grey-haired man, this outstanding scientist. I was under the impression that someone was directing him and constantly summoning him from the hall.
The third episode is connected with Sakharov's appearance on the podium at the close of the Congress.
Sakharov's remarks about the actions of our soldiers in Afghanistan had already irritated many in the audience. Sakharov's associates fed him 'cooked' facts and he used them, without bothering to check, in one of his interviews, which produced a sharp reaction in the Congress. Sakharov was clearly embarrassed. And even though his last speech was, I assume, an attempt to restore his standillg, therc was also, besides his personal motives, the political calculation of his entourage. Sakharov must close the Congress with his parting words - this was their ploy.
His desire to take the floor produced strong resistance from the deputies. Nevertheless, I insisted on giving him five minutes. Under my pressure the Congress agreed. He began to talk, obviously repeating what he had already said ten days ago. In the sixth or seventh minute I reminded him: 'Andrei Dmitrievich, time has run out.'
Sakharov did not listen and continued speaking. I again and again asked him to come to an end. Finally, when the microphone was turned off, Sakharov raised his hands to heaven like a victim of tyranny. This produced a hubbub in the hall, with some of the deputies and the public loudly hailing him and expressing their anger at the Chairman. It was a well played act that was intended to show the nation how impudently the powers that be treated a man of honour. What good could one expect from them after this?
Nevertheless, in spite of all of these incidents, which I attribute to the insidious influence of certain people from his entourage, I end this story as I began: Sakhalov made a constructive contribution to the work of the first Congress and to the establishment of a parliamentary system in our country.
{p. 300} But this is not the only service Sakharov redered to Russia by any means. He was one of the first to speak out for democracy and freedom, for renewal of socialism, and for true power to the Soviets. Such was the essence of the draft of the constitution that Andrei Dmitrievich sent to the constitutionlal commission. We intended to use much of his wording, which was written incidentally not by a jurist, but by a physicist. ...
{p. 301} I must admit that I too had the feeling of a certain 'duality' On the one hand, I was reasonably certain that reform had finally got under way, that the new parliament which had been created was no mere manifestation of an omnipotent Party, but a genuine meeting of representatives elected by the people. On the other hand, I was put on my guard by the excessive claims of the radicals, their frenzied onslaughts, their desire to obtain everything all at once, first and foremost to throw the Party out of power. The strategic aim of eliminating the monopoly rule of the CPSU, more accurately, of the Party and state apparatus, was correct - but tactically it would have been better to transfer power to the Soviets not all at once, but smoothly, in a gradual process, so that the country would remain governable and the 'partocracy' would not have grounds to blame perestroika for everything. ...
We discussed all the issues around which passions raged in the country, including the events in Tbilisi, and the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop protocol to the Soviet-German Pact of 1939, which had a dramatic effect on the fate of the Baltic republics.
{p. 310} Once the radicals came to power in autumn 1991, they unleashed a powerful attack on the Soviets, declaring them citadels of the totalitarian system. Then, using the events of 3-4 October 1993, {footnote: The armed conflict between supporters of President Yeltsin and his opponents, ensconced in the Russian white House, which resulted in loss of life} they wiped the entire Soviet system off the face of the earth. Here and there Soviets resisted, but in the end they were forced to disband. Is the Soviet form of government indeed not suitable for democracy? This conclusion is refuted by the fact that up to a certain point the radicals did not have any grievances against the Soviets. On the contrary, Sakharov even retained this form of government in his draft constitution, and in the 1st USSR Congress of People's Deputies he proposed that we should pass a decree on the transfer of all power to the Soviets. ...
{p. 311} Can the Soviet principle be combined with the principle of the separation of powers, which is the mainstay of the parliamentary system? The answer has to be yes. At least the brief experience of our new Parliament confirmed the possibility of combining these two.
Its opponents usually argue that the ultimate authority of the Soviets is incompatible with the separation of powers. However, this is either a failure to understand or an intentional distortion of the essence of the matter. It may be due in no small measure to problems inherent in the notion itself: Supreme power cannot be divided in any way. It must be integral and whole, for to believe otherwise is tantamoullt to accepting the existence of dual power or triple power in one state, and possibly the simultaneous conduct of several political courses - in other words, everything that is characteristic of brief 'times of trouble' and that ends in the collapse of one system and the establishment of another. ...
Parliament concentrates on the principal task of state administration - legislation. Day-to-day management is accomplished by the government. And thc application of laws and resolution of disputes is the conccrn of the courts. ... Thus the sovereignty of the Soviets by no means interferes with the separation of the functions of power or, as is conventionally said, separation of powers.
5.2 Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika: New Thinking For Our Country and the World, Fontana/Collins, London 1987.
{p. 25} Turning to Lenin, an Ideological Source of Perestroika
The life-giving impetus of our great Revolution was too powerful for the Party and people to reconcile themselves to phenomena that were threatening to squander its gains. The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity.
{p. 110} The Soviets in Russia are a phenomenon unique in the history of world politics. They are the fruit of direct, creative participation by the working people. Naturally they formed the political basis for the new republic that emerged in October 1917. Our country was henceforth called the Soviet Republic. If there had been no Soviets we would not have won the civil war.
{p. 111} However, when the command-economy system of management was propelled into existence, the Soviets were somehow pushed back.
{p. 118} Tsarist Russia was called a prisoner of nations ... If the nationality question had not been solved in principle, the Soviet Union would never have had the social, cultural, economic and defense potential it has now. {But the nationality question brought the USSR asunder in 1991}
{p. 119} Against the background of national strife, which has not spared even the world's most advanced countries, the USSR represents a truly unique example in the history of world civilization. These are the fruits of the nationality policy launched by Lenin.
{p. 163} Marx, Engels and Lenin, who theoretically substantiated the principles on which the concept of socialism is founded, did not seek to give a detailed picture of the future society. {end of quotes}
5.3 Gorbachev for a World Civilization. This is from
On My Country and the World, by Mikhail Gorbachev (Columbia University Press, 2000): http://www.ciaonet.org/book/gorbachev/28ch-275-278.pdf.
Gorbachev writes,
{start of quote}
We must advance through worldwide cooperation based on complete equality, without any use of force, and with peaceful co-development of all nations. This necessitates a profound change in the course of history itself, a change in the present paradigm, in the human community's very way of existence. ...
We need to replace a civilization that produces without thinking, that is exhausting the natural resources on which its existence depends, with a civilization that constantly reproduces the conditions required for its existence, accumulating and not destroying the potential for future development. We need a civilization that aims not merely to survive but to live to the fullest and provide a full life for present and future generations. ...
I emphasize the international-political aspect of the new thinking because global problems are among the most important problems humanity will face in the transition to a new form of existence. Another task of the new thinking is to search for answers to new problems that may be posed by changing times and that will face the entire world community. ...
The intention of the new thinking is to call for joint efforts worldwide to find answers because it is impossible to impose on humanity some predigested answers thought up by only a few people. The only effective answers will be collective ones that make collective action possible. ...
This presupposes the understanding that no one has a monopoly on the truth but that by generalizing the entire collective experience that has accumulated and that reflects the input of all ideological tendencies, we can arrive at truly joint conclusions and decisions. The modern world can no longer be built on the basis of an endless confrontation of ideologies. Differences of opinion cannot be eradicated, but while they will continue to exist, it is possible to find a synthesis for the col- lective solution of problems and the construction of a platform on which we can work jointly. ...
The changes that began first in the Soviet Union and then in other countries (and all countries have changed in the past ten years ... reflected objective needs, the needs of the future, the need for a new world civilization. ...
I am convinced that a necessary stage on humanity's path toward a new state of being must be, and cannot help but be, a renewal of its thinking. It is an insistent need of our times that this kind of thinking be given its rightful place and developed further, that the new thinking be enriched, for it has already proven capable of overcoming impasses and opening the way for breakthroughs in politics where it had seemed no breakthrough was possible. {endquote}
(6) Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies For Old
Sakharov's explicit plan for Convergence is the core piece of evidence in Golitsyn's book. But Golitsyn, instead of regarding Sakharov as a dissident and threat to the regime, sees him as a "false dissident", a puppet of the authorities.
Golitsyn has Gorbachev enacting out Sakharov's plan, with the West falling for a "fake" dismemberment of the Soviet Union. The Sino-Soviet Split, according to Golitsyn, was a carefully-orchestrated illusion. This would include the military clashes on their border in the late 1960s, China's opening to the West, and the war between China and Vietnam (a Soviet ally) in 1979. All fake, according to Golitsyn.
Golitsyn and his followers in the West still refer to the Soviet Union as an on-going entity. Surely the US troops in Afghanistan must finally prove this theory wrong?
Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies For Old, Dodd, Mead & Co, NY 1984.
{p. 327} Among such previously unthinkable strategems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious
{p. 328} independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
{p. 340} "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. The "Prague spring" was accepted by the West, and not only by the left, as the spontaneous and genuine evolution of a communist regime into a form of democratic, humanistic socialism despite the fact that basically the regime, the structure of the party, and its objectives remained the same. Its impact has already been de
{p. 341} scribed. A broader-scale "liberalization" in the Sovlet Union and elsewhere would have an even more profound effect. Eurocommunism could be revived. The pressure for united fronts between communist and socialist parties and trade unions at national and international level would be intensified. This time, the socialists mlght 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 mfluence of commnunist 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 Czechsolovaks, in contrast with their performance in 1968, might well take the initiative, along with the Romanians and Yugoslavs, in proposing (in the CSCE context) the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact m 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 contment and a closer European alignment with a "liberalized" Soviet bloc. Perhaps in the longer 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 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 steps in laying the foundation for a merger between the EEC and Comecon.
{p. 342} 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 an alliance with China as the only counterweight to Soviet power. The greater the fear of a Soviet-socialist European coalition, the stronger the argument for "playing the China card" - on the false assumption that China is a true enemy of the Soviet Union. {end of quotes}
(7) How Golitsyn's Ideas Are Being Taken Up in the United States
7.1 This is from http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a481893.htm.
It shows how Golitsyn's ideas are being taken up in the United States.
{start quote} Golitsyn's Latest Book
Fatima Crusader 1997 William Fante
Former KGB Agent knows His Facts Anatoliy Golitsyn's first book, New Lies for Old, caused a long running sensation when it was discovered that, unlike most Western analysts, the author had accurately predicted, some years ahead of events, the "Break with the Past" which took place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in 1989-91. Mark Riebling, in his book Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA (Alfred A Knopf, New York 1994), carried out a methodical analysis of Golitsyn's predictions in New Lies for Old. Riebling says that "139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993 - accuracy range of nearly 94 percent." ... In his 1984 New Lies For Old book (published five years before Gorbachevs Glasnost) Golitsyn predicted:
- the "false liberalization" campaigns of Glasnost and Perestroika - the rise of false "dissidents" such as Andrei Sakharov. - the developments between China and the Soviet Union so as to make them appear as "enemies. - the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact - the "reemergence" of Solidarity in Poland - the reunification of East and West Germany - the demolition of the Berlin Wall - Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and repudiation of its earlier invasion.
These and many other developments Golitsyn predicted with stunning precision. Now, Golitsyn is making predictions again, and the forecast is terrifying, not only because of the future depicted image itself, but primarily because of Golitsyn's remarkable track record of foretelling events before they happen.
In his latest book The Perestroika Deception (published in 1995), Golitsyn explains the devious secret intent behind the Leninist Strategy which the "former" Communists are pursuing under cover of fake "reform" and "progress toward democracy". The immediate strategic objective is convergence with the West - on their terms, not ours. The ultimate objective is Lenin's replacement of nation states with the collective regional governments as building blocks of the "New World Social Order" - a World Communist Government. {end quote}
7.2 On a similar theme, this is from http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/perestroika_02.htm
{start quote} Leninists Still Leading by William F. Jasper
This is part two of an interview by William F. Jasper, senior editor of THE NEW AMERICAN, with Christopher Story, editor of Soviet Analyst, an intelligence commentary, and editor of The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and author of New Lies for Old. The interview was conducted August l& 1995 in the Presidio, San Francisco, outside the headquarters of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA.
Q. According to Anatoliy Golitsyn, "glasnost, " "perestroika," and the reforms and upheavals we have been witnessing in the '[former" Soviet Bloc represent controlled events which form part of a "Grand Strategy" rehearsed and planned decades ago. Could you explain the meaning of the phrase "strategic deception ?"
A. Golitsyn makes clear throughout The Perestroika Deception that the personalities on the stage of the so-called "former" Soviet Union are all secret members of the Communist Party, KGB officers, members of the huge Komsomol network numbering over 50 million, or members of the nomenklatura - or, at a lower level, druzhiny (vigilantes), who are used for staged demonstrations, televised provocations, and street events. As Golitsyn writes on page 19 of The Perestroika Deception:
Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to "resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge" to achieve their objectives. This advice was given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism in Russia, in his work Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.
... Another speech of Lenin's ... in July 1921 is again highly relevant to understanding "perestroika." "Our only strategy at present," wrote Lenin, "is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses round you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word." |Emphasis in original.]
If you examine the backgrounds of prominent Russian figures, you will find that they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol pedigrees. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the Western media have accepted their sudden, orchestrated, mass "conversion" to Western-style norms of behavior, their endless talk of "democracy," and their acceptance of "capitalism," as genuine. "Scratch these new, instant Soviet "democrats," "anti-Communists," and "nationalists" who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents," Golitsyn writes on page 123 of his new book. In accepting at face value the "transformation" of these Leninist revolutionary Communists into "instant democrats," the West automatically accepts as genuine the false "Break with the Past" - the single lie upon which the entire deception is based.
In short, the "former" Soviet Union - and the East European countries as well - are all run by people who are steeped in the dialectical modus operandi of Lenin. Without exception, they are all active Leninist revolutionaries, working collectively towards the establishment of a world Communist government, which, by definition, will be a world dictatorship.
It is difficult for the West to understand the Leninist Hegelian dialectical method - the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome. Equally difficult for us to comprehend is the fact that these Leninist revolutionaries plan their strategies over decades and generations. This extraordinary behavior is naturally alien to Western politicians, who can see no further than the next election. Western politicians usually react to events. Leninist revolutionaries create events, in order to control reactions to them and manipulate their outcomes.
Before Gorbachev - acting on the instructions of the Leninist strategic collective - embarked upon perestroika, he achieved a breakthrough by convincing the former British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, that he was someone she could do business with. This was done by personal contact, and through the intermediation of a dispatched defector, Oleg Gordievsky, his role being to reassure the British government that Gorbachev was "genuine." in her book The Downing Street Years, Lady Thatcher even admits that she mistook Gorbachev's style for the substance. I explain this in my introduction to Golitsyn's new book: "As he cast his spell [over Mrs. Thatcher], Gorbachev unlocked the key to the control of the Western mind - and to the restructuring of the entire world. The West followed Lady Thatcher's prompting, mistaking the style for the substance. The disastrous consequences of this millennial error are now crowding in upon Western civilization, threatening its very survival."
The purpose of perestroika, culminating in the "Break with the Past," has been to convince the gullible West that Communism is dead, that the Soviet Union has collapsed, and that we are friends, not enemies anymore ...
Of course, the Western media failed completely to understand the significance of the speech - just as today it fails to alert us to the war preparations the Russians are conducting in close collaboration with the Communist Chinese; and just as it has failed to question why, as a Reuters report noted on August 13, 1995, the "former USSR" maintains "dozens of closed military cities." The fact is that the West does not know what goes on in the dozens of closed secret military and nuclear cities. The press should be asking how this squares with the rhetoric that the "former" Soviet Union is no longer an adversary or a threat.
Gorbachev's Fulton speech contained the directives of the secret Leninist revolutionaries, with which the West was required to comply.
Q. Describe the Soviet "convergence" strategy.
A. This is the central objective towards which the secret Leninist revolutionaries are working. Their purpose has been to dismantle overt Communism, to establish apparently "normal" relations with the West, to remove travel restrictions so that large numbers of their agents would be accepted into Western societies, and to "cooperate" with the West - in parallel with the West dropping its antagonistic stance, dismantling its military power, collectivizing its security arrangements, and signing bilateral and multilateral treaties and accords with the "former" Soviet Bloc.
But the West does not understand that these Leninist revolutionaries intend that "convergence" is to be achieved on their (Communist) terms, not on ours. The Leninist meaning of "convergence" is that the West is to "converge" towards the Communists, contrary to the naive belief of Western policy-makers and political establishments. {end quote}
(7.3 George W. Bush, re-launching the Cold War, seems to be acting on Golitsyn's theory. Bush has restored military funding, announced a withdrawl from disarmament treaties, expelled Russian diplomats, and confronted China.
One difference between Story & Bush is that Des Griffin, publisher of Midnight Messenger, who seems very close to Story, is very anti-Zionist, whereas Bush is clearly in with the Sharon-Netanyahu-Monica Lewinsky faction.
(8) How Golitsyn garbled the story
8.1 Golitsyn shows no understanding of the nature of the Stalinist-Trotskyist rift. Stalin was a Clinton - a non-Jew at the head of a secretly Jewish government - who took power from the non-theistic Jews around him, and gradually restored it to Russians. For that, he and the USSR have been dumped. If you ever attend Trotskyist meetings, you'll see how they hate Stalin, loathe him, write him out of history.
Stalin's murder of Trotsky, and the subsequent murder of Stalin by the Jewish faction, attest to the reality of the conflict.
The One-World movement is clearly based in the West; its Trotskyist, Fabian and Zionist wings are dominant in the West today.
The Trots and Fabians supported the USSR when it came to evicting Europeans from their empires. Both have promoted Free Trade (Capitalism) to destroy the economy of nation-states - that's why our Economics faculties are dominated by "Thatcherites". The Greens, Trots etc see themselves as coming to power after the end of nation-states (perhaps after a war).
8.2 A view from Midnight Messenger, run by Des Griffin, at http://www.midnight-emissary.com/.
I bought something from them, and they enclosed their magazine etc. Through that material, as I recall, I came across Anatoliy Golitsyn's book Perestroika Deception. Golitsyn is said to be a Soviet agent who defected to the West in the 1960s ... he is supposed to have attended a meeting of Western spy-agencies in Melbourne many years ago, but his photo has never been published.
In his earlier book New Lies For Old, Golitsyn gives credible evidence of the movement for convergence between the USSR & US, creating a World State. It's Trotskyist: get rid of "Stalinism" in the USSR, & link it up with the World Federalists in the US. You can see signs of it in H. G. Wells: hgwells.html & David Ben Gurion: bengur62.jpg.
Golitsyn was partly right, but he also garbled the story, as if he'd got it third-hand. The puppet-masters are in the US, not Russia & China.
In Perestroika Deception (which I have not seen - I'm going from the reviews on the Internet), Golitsyn says that the fall of Communism was fake, phony, staged by Gorbachev et. al.; the Sino-Soviet split likewise. Russia and China are trying to trick the US into a World Government under their control; the Clinton regime fell for the trick. The book is subtitled, "Memo to the CIA"; I think it should be "Memo FROM the CIA".
George W. Bush has taken this new Golitsyn book seriously: he expelled the Russian "spies", and confronted China, in line with Perestroika Deception. I wrote to Midnight Messenger, making the above points, but received no reply. SUSPICIOUS!
8.3 Through Stalin, the Zionist-Trotskyist-Fabian one-worlders lost control of Communism in the USSR - the Russians refused to be dominated. So they decided to try to draw the USSR back into a One World Civilization controlled from the West. Gorbachev took the bait. Gorbachev had to sell Perestroika to the hardliners back home, to the Stalinists still present. Hence his portrayal of it being orchestrated from Moscow, control remaining in Moscow etc.
H.G. Wells laid out the scenario for drawing the USSR back in, in his book The Shape of Things to Come: hgwells.html.
He called his movement The Modern State Movement; the following is from p. 320 in the hardback (London, Hutchinson & Co., 1933) and p. 363 in the paperback (Corgi books, New York, 1979):
"The method of treaty-making and a modus vivendi was already in operation in regard to Russia. There indeed it was hard to say whether the Communist party or the Modern State Movement was in control, so far had assimilation gone. And the new spirit in the old United States was now so 'Modern' that the protests of Washington and of various state governors against the Controls were received hilariously. Aeroplanes from Dearborn circled over the capital and White House and dropped parodies of the President's instructions to dissolve the Air and Food Trust of America. All over that realist continent, indeed, the Controls expanded as a self-owned business with a complete disregard of political formalities. But the European situation was more perplexing."
Of course, H.G. Wells was not really running it - he just thought he was.
Look at the Gulf War & the Kosovo War, & you must admit where the real power lies. NATO even wanted to intervene to support the Chechens (as it did in Kosovo) - that's when Yeltsin "reminded" Clinton about Russia's nuclear weapons.
8.4 From review of Poslednyaya Respublika ("The Last Republic"), by Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun), Moscow: TKO ACT, 1996, at http://ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html
Reviewed by Daniel W. Michaels
"The enormous Palace of Soviets, approved by the Soviet government in the early 1930s, was to be 1,250 feet tall, surmounted with a statue of Lenin 300 feet in height -- taller than New York's Empire State Building. It was to be built on the site of the former Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On Stalin's order, this magnificent symbol of old Russia was blown up in 1931 -- an act whereby the nation's Communist rulers symbolically erased the soul of old Russia to make room for the centerpiece of the world USSR.
"However, only the bowl-shaped foundation for this grandiose monument was ever completed, and during the 1990s, after the collapse the USSR, the Christ the Savior Cathedral was painstakingly rebuilt on the site."
The cathedral REBUILT - in the name of Communism? No way.
The 1979 war between China and Vietnam was particularly bitter. The Soviet Union had just renewed a defence pact with Vietnam, obviously aimed at China; the US Government warned the USSR not to intervene. It didn't, proving the treaty worthless. During the 1980s, China allowed the CIA to monitor Soviet nuclear tests from within its territory:
U.S., China Team Up in Drug War; New Center Helps Nations Eavesdrop on Traffickers
The Washington Post; Washington, D.C.; Oct 31, 1998; John Pomfret; Douglas Farah;
ISSN: 01908286
http://burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/archives/199811/msg00070.html
In a step toward joint operations to fight international crime, the United States and China have established a secret electronic surveillance post along China's border with Burma to eavesdrop on narcotics traffickers from the Golden Triangle, one of the world's biggest sources of heroin, Chinese and U.S. sources say. ...
The listening post, staffed by Chinese and U.S. agents near the Chinese border town of Ruili in southern Yunnan province, marks a significant step forward in a U.S. intelligence-sharing relationship with China that dates back to 1971. It follows on the operation in the 1980s by the CIA and its Chinese counterpart of listening posts in China's far-western Xinjiang Autonomous Region to monitor Soviet nuclear weapons tests. ... {end}
So much for the idea that the Sino-Soviet split was illusory.
Golitsyn is wrong, and dangerous. He would have us oppose Putin, when he's the good guy. While Russia was rebuilding its cathedral, the West was trashing its own past.
The taboo on investigation of the Jewish role in politics is the reason for Golitsyn's distorted understanding.
Now, Solzhenitsyn is living on the outskirts of Moscow, writing a history which shows the Jewish role in Communism, without stigmatising "all Jews", and paving the way for the overcoming of old animosities.
8.5 Convergence involves synchronisation. If the timing is wrong, it fails - and it has. The West and Russia (& China) have now swapped sides. The West is now the "Communist" force destroying the past & imposing a world state, while Russia & the East are preserving traditional culture.
(9) Cohn-Bendit's Manifesto for a Green Communist EU, inspired by Trotsky - Václav Klaus (added February 1, 2014)
Václav Klaus, former Czech president, has seen it all before. The Green Left, bearers of the 1968 political movement, aim for a Soviet Europe. But it's Trotskyist, not Stalinist.
Democrats of Europe, wake up!
by Václav Klaus
September 8, 2013
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3435
Manifest initiated by the Former President of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus
Prominent media both in our country (Lidové noviny, 4th September 2013) and in the world have published the declaration by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the infamous anarchist and fighter at the barricades of Paris in 1968, and by Felix Marquardt. They are co-founders of the movement Europeans Now, the so-called Young Europeans: "Unite!"
This catchphrase is a deliberate rephrasing of Marx's Communist Manifesto and its appeal "Workers of the world, unite!" and it clearly points in the same direction. Modern leftist radicals, not only of the red sort but nowadays more often of the green one too, are now trying to revive the horrors that were brought into being as a result of the Manifesto and its appeal, with its tens of millions of victims of the Communist social-engineering project which in the end, after a long time (alas! much too long a time!), collapsed almost a quarter of century ago these people are trying to revive all this by means of the European Union.
Democrats in Europe must not brush this aside as unimportant. It is an overt step towards the final transformation of this originally international organisation into a European superstate, designed to destroy the historical European states together with the concept of democracy that is indivisibly and inseparably associated with these states.
Let us not underestimate these people! Daniel Cohn-Bendit is a prominent Member of the European Parliament for the Green Party. This radical Franco-German politician, who used to be known as "Dany the Red," is publishing his manifesto at the time when the European Union is struggling with its worst and deepest financial, economic and political crisis to date, brought about by a number of factors, last but not least of which is the totally unauthentic and overhasty integration process. Many countries, especially in the South of our continent, are struggling with the deepest frustration of their citizens, while unemployment is rocketing, especially among the young, and social tension is building up. The leaders of the movement Europeans Now have decided that this is the ideal opportunity to repeat Marx's old recipe for the creation of the new International association of leftist parties, for the lining up of the non-democratic elements and for the final takeover. What they have changed is only the vocabulary, while the essence remains the same.
They write, "The time has come for the international, inter-gender and non-ideological movement that would hoist the European integration to the new level." Its authors decry the "nation-stateÒ as an "outdated structure". They also signal, in connection with the forthcoming elections for the European Parliament, the "creation of a party" that should be again! a party of a totally "new" type.
The authors furthermore say, with a shocking opennes: "It is very naïve to expect that traditional national political leaders elected ... by citizens in their sovereign territory might solve problems in an adequate way... let us go on supporting our favorite footbal or rugby teams. But let us not be fooled by the blown up bullshit of our national political leaders who keep saying that in the field of politics the national state remains to be the appropriate means."
This manipulative language, which reduces the traditions and history of the sovereign European states to football fanship, is typical of the whole manifesto. The denigration of "ideologyÒ, or rather of ideas which are essential and indispensable to truly democratic politics, targets the very core of democracy. These people are turning to "generations" that are allegedly "hindered by the limited world view applied in their countries."
The authors unscrupulously proclaim that the Europe of today is about something else than "how the individual nations would like the world to be". The creation anew of the "melting-pot of nations" in the style of the old Soviet Union has become the overt goal of this political movement. "We must let our national politicians know that we will no more buy their nationalist bric-á-brac," proclaim Cohn-Bendit and his comrades. "We must... begin to act as Europeans. And our first step is to elect our representatives not as French, German or Greek citizens, but as the citizens of Europe." With this, the exponents of Europeans Now conclude their appeal for the formation of the new Interrnational association of leftist political parties.
Let us not admit the thought that this is a mere "eccentricity" or "excess". These "new leaders" are only vocalising openly what the contemporary European elites disguise in less radical words in order not to terrify the citizens of their countries too much. Their deeds, however, in a no less radical way, proceed towards the very same goal. Revolutionaries such as Cohn-Bendit et al. just make the mistake that in the interest of their political ambitions in the upcoming European elections they brashly make public this totalitarian ideology coated with "modern paint".
It would be a tragic mistake to leave these appeals for the definitive change of regime in Europe unanswered. But alas, democrats are asleep! The historical experience of citizens who twenty five years ago divested themselves of their bondage seems to be forgotten. And the democratic politicians of the erstwile free world, confronted with this new and now quite undisguised road to serfdom, still persist in their criminal negligence and apathy. History teaches us that not to oppose actively and in time this ever growing danger, both in the individual states and in the European institutions, might in the near future bring about tragic outcomes.
Then it will be too late.
That is why we appeal to all the democratic elements in Europe, to all those who still believe that Europe must not become the laboratory of another social-engineering experiment of eternal revolutionaries, to oppose these attempts in an equally fierce, vociferous and uncompromising manner as that of our opponents.
Democrats of the European countries, wake up!
(10) Democrats of Europe, wake up! - Manifest initiated by the Former President of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus
President Klaus' European Manifesto
John Laughland
Hungarian Review
28 November 2013
http://www.hungarianreview.com/article/20131128_president_klaus_european_manifesto
"The post-Cold War ideology of the end of the nation-state through the free market, espoused by Cohn-Bendit and all pro-Europeans, and the pre-Cold War ideology of communism are, in fact, closely related." The publication of the manifesto in September by the former Czech president, Václav Klaus, and signed by various European politicians and academics, which criticised an article by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the German Green Member of the European Parliament, was not the first occasion the two men have crossed swords. ...
In his September manifesto, Klaus took Cohn-Bendit to task for an article he had published in the New York Times, which announced the launch of a movement called "Europeans Now" and whose slogan is "Young Europeans, unite!" The manifesto called on the peoples of Europe to cast aside their national differences and to move to "the next stage of European integration". Cohn-Bendit and his co-author, an Austrian-American public relations consultant based in Paris, wrote:
"The nation-state is fast becoming an obsolete political structure." They called for Europe to embrace "a new, post-national era" as the pre-condition for the continent's survival and said they wanted to see a "transnational, transgenerational, transpartisan, grassroots and crowdfunded movement to take European integration to the next level". Irony is evidently not their strong point: apart from their choice of vocabulary, which seems to owe as much to the Rocky Horror Picture Show as to The Communist Manifesto, the two authors seemed to find nothing odd in publishing their rallying cry for Europe in an American newspaper, or in the fact that, aged 68, Cohn-Bendit is hardly in a position to speak on behalf of the young. [...]
This truth is not understood because of the caricature which is often made of the ideological battle known as the Cold War. According to this caricature, a statist system in the East was defeated by the forces of liberty in the West. Like many caricatures, it contains some truth; but it also obscures the true relationship between Marxism-Leninism, on the one hand, and the state and the free market on the other. ... Like the French revolutionaries before them, Marx, Engels and Lenin believed the state was only an instrument of repression. They argued that man would be free only when the state had withered away, as it surely would as a result of the ineluctable laws of history and economics. For Lenin as for Marx, the future of mankind was to be found in internationalism and cosmopolitanism. Marx made it clear that he supported the forces of world-wide capitalism because he was convinced that they would tear down the traditional social structures of family and nation. Engels argued that the destruction of the nation-state was the necessary precondition for "the free and spontaneous association of men".
In contrast to this anti-statist leftism, conservative political movements have always argued in favour of the state that is, in favour of the particular structures and habits of political societies which have grown up over time and which determine, at least in part, who individuals are. Conservatives reject the abstract universalism and the sheer indeterminacy of internationalism, in favour of the reality of human life. Edmund Burke famously defended not only "the little platoon" but also the great social contract uniting the living and the dead, i.e. the nation whose life transcends that of the individual, and which unites him with his ancestors and with future generations. Conservatives are aware that political life is not determined by choice alone but rather people are born into a nation they have not chosen, just as they are born to parents they do not chose.
The Cold War caused this old distinction to appear to break down. East and West cross-dressed. While the supposedly internationalist East in fact became autarkic, statist and socially prudish, the supposedly conservative West profiled itself as the more progressive of the two blocs. It not only beat the Soviets in material terms the very issue over which Khrushchev laid down his famously foolish challenge to Richard Nixon in 1959, when he said, "We will overtake America and then, as we pass, wave bye-bye!" but also, in effect, tried to be more left-wing than the official leftists. It did this in many ways, including by waging a modernist cultural war against the Soviet Union and its satellites, which were derided for promoting classical symphonies and realist painting long after the West had adopted atonal music and modern art. Equivalents of the Beatles east of East Berlin provoked censorship and banning.
In the 1980s, the confusion deepened with the arrival on the political scene of the twin ideologies of Thatcherite privatisation and of European integration. The rivalry between these two projects obscured their ideological closeness, like the rivalry between liberalism and communism itself. Just as Mrs Thatcher had declared that she wanted to "roll back the frontiers of the state", so Jacques Delors caused the frontiers of the states of Europe to be rolled back by means of the single market. Delors introduced his ambitious Single European Act in the same year as the Big Bang revolutionised the financial sector in the City of London, and ultimately it was the Thatcher revolution which brought grist to Jacques Delors' mill.
By the time of the events of 1989, therefore, international liberalism was very much the dominant ideology in the West. In the minds of many Western politicians, globalisation was (and remains) an instrument for dismantling the nation-state and for changing society. These political actors agreed with the diagnosis of the brilliant former communist, Milovan Djilas, who wrote in The Fall of the New Class that "Every Marxist, going back to Marx himself and forward past Lenin, regarded the creation of a world market and all that it brought about (strengthening each and every link among peoples, tearing down the barriers between nations, etc.) as a progressive fact of capitalism and a necessary condition for proletarian internationalism itself and the true convergence of peoples in socialism". True Marxists, in other words, were anti-Soviet.
This new hegemony of international liberalism was partly the result of the change in generations. The libertarian ideology of 1968 had a massive influence in Western Europe in the 1980s and 1990s, when those who had been students in the 1960s came to power. But it is often forgotten that such people were often anti-Soviet because anti-Stalinist. Like Trotsky, they hated Stalin for his social conservatism and for having abandoned the project of world revolution. Although orthodox (pro-Moscow) communist parties remained strong in various countries across Western Europe, the future political class which started to wield power and influence in Europe in the 1980s came largely from the various anti-Soviet communist movements which had so prospered in the West. I am thinking of people like Cohn-Bendit himself, who denounced les crapules staliniennes of the CGT Trade Union in 1968; the anti-Stalinist former communist, Bernard Kouchner, who became Foreign Minister of France under the supposedly pro-free-market Nicolas Sarkozy; the former Maoist leader, José Manuel Barroso, now president of the European Commission; and intellectuals like the former Maoists, Bernard-Henri Lévy and André Glucksmann. Jürgen Habermas, prophet of the end of the nation-state and a product of the neo-Marxist anti-Soviet Frankfurt School, is also a case in point.
Just as the anti-Soviet left was completing its long march through Western institutions, a similar movement was taking place in the East. Critical Marxists (critical, that is, of the actual regimes in power in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, but not critical of Marxism as such) played a key role in discrediting the practice of communism in Eastern Europe while upholding much of the theory. Many of the leading dissidents, especially those popular in the West, were leftists. Such people continue to be fêted today the Sakharov Prize is awarded by the European Parliament to icons of political correctness like Nelson Mandela, Alexander Dubcek, Ibrahim Rugova, Reporters Without Borders and so on while patriotic anti-communists like Solzhenitsyn or Alexander Zinoviev have been dropped down the memory hole. The fame and popularity in the West of Václav Havel was precisely due to the fact that he unambiguously came from the political and cultural left; and to the fact that he profiled himself, in the 1990s, as a vigorous supporter of the post-modernist end of the nation-state advocated by NATO in justification of its bombing attack on Yugoslavia.
So broad and deep has this movement been, one might even say that Trotsky's expulsion from the USSR in 1929, and his subsequent emigration to the West where he lived until 1940, has proved to be more of a spark igniting the ideology of world revolution than Lenin's arrival at the Finland Station was. It is certainly true that the post-national, one-world ideology of John Lennon has proved more powerful, in West and East, than the same ideology peddled by Vladimir Lenin. The events of 1989, therefore, did not mark the victory of conservatism over communism but instead of international liberalism over more or less nationalist socialism. As a poster in a Prague shop window in 1989 eloquently pointed out, "89" is nothing but "68" turned round.
Indeed, as communism collapsed, the great fear in the West was that free nationhood would cause instability. Just as the British Prime Minister, John Major, attributed the civil war in Yugoslavia to "the collapse of the Soviet Union and of the discipline which that exerted over the ancient hatreds" (he had evidently never heard of Tito's split with Stalin in 1948), so Helmut Kohl forced Europe to centralise its power over its nation-states supposedly in order to prevent war. The strengthening of the EU by means of a "hard core" of states, tied together through the euro and exerting a gravitational force on the periphery, was the geopolitical response to the perceived danger caused by the void left by the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.
In fact, precisely the sort of "convergence" between East and West which people like Andrei Sakharov and Edward Shevardnadze had been calling for in fact occurred. While many people in the East eagerly adopted the tenets of capitalism, which they rightly regarded as more socially revolutionary than communism, in the West many people eagerly adopted ideas which had previously been dismissed as Soviet propaganda, especially the concept of revolution and the doctrine of peace through internationalism. A huge panoply of international structures was put in place, from the EU and the euro to the supranational New Strategic Concept of NATO. Yugoslavia was attacked and international tribunals were set up in the name of the very humanity eulogised by the Internationale. Colour revolutions, inspired by May 1968, were supported and often paid for by the West against the reactionary authoritarianism which supposedly still emanated from Russia. As one commentator wrote, NATO became a peace movement.
Moreover, just as supranational organisations were strengthened everything from the OSCE and international tribunals to the New Strategic Concept of NATO and the creation of the WTO was inspired by supranationalism so, within states, non-governmental organisations were promoted, especially in Eastern Europe, with the aim of making it difficult for states to deviate from the post-modernism Europe and Euro-Atlantic structures now demanded. Official organs especially electoral commissions and the forces of law and order were discredited, as if there was something inherently suspicious about the properly constituted structures of a state. Meanwhile, the proliferation of human rights law also took political disputes out of the properly public arena and put them instead in the hands of judges (not necessarily with any legal training) deliberating behind closed doors. This strategy worked for a long time and has met its first major hurdles only recently, in the persons of Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin, who instead plead in favour of traditional Christian values and a strong state rooted in national history.
By means of these various movements, the post-national ideas so dear to Cohn-Bendit in his youth when he declared that the French tricolour was there to be burned have now migrated from official status in the chancelleries of Warsaw Pact countries, and from unofficial status in political science faculties all over Western Europe and the USA, to become the dominant ideology of our times. It is because these left-wing intellectuals have moved on to Marx's core belief about the withering away of the state that they have abandoned traditional Marxism, which in any case they looked down on as too working-class. Perhaps the most obvious indication of how these ideas now hold sway is the way in which the entire communist experience is now reduced, in the general imagination, to nothing but Russian imperialism. In an incredible intellectual conjuring trick, the fashionable and progressive ideology of communism, which inspired people for generations from Havana to Hanoi, and which continues to hold power in the most populous country in the world, has now been transformed into nothing but a reactionary geopolitical game played by Moscow.
Václav Klaus has never bought into any of this. Unlike the dissidents so fashionable in the West, Klaus never supported any kind of Marxism, reformed or otherwise. A noted Eurosceptic, he saw the dangers of replacing a defunct supranational structure with a new one. He has expressed strong hostility to the global warming lobby, which he considers a threat to liberty just as serious as communism. He opposed NATO's attacks on Yugoslavia and Libya. He has maintained cordial relations with the new Russian leaders and with Russia generally; he has been reserved towards the German Christian Democrats who call the shots in Europe but who harbour within their ranks people who bear historic grudges against the Czech state. Remarkably for a liberal economist, Klaus understands the importance of the state as a source of national identity and, of course, of law. For all these sins, he is excoriated by the post-modern left of which the Franco-German ecologist Member of the European Parliament, Dany the Red, still remains one of the most emblematic representatives.
(11) Summary
The usual Convergence theory comes via Anatoliy Golitsyn. An ex-Soviet agent, he claimed that Convergence was a Soviet plot.
The evidence I have accumulated shows otherwise. It shows that Jews had gradually lost control of the Soviet Union; that there was a genuine non-Jewish Communism there, just as there was in Poland during the 1980s: poland.html.
I believe that Golitsyn got the story wrong because he received it second-hand.
Convergence, my material shows, was a movement by Jews (Trotskyists and/or Zionists) to REGAIN control of the USSR by returning it to its Trotskyist period. At the same time, they would impose Trotskyist social policies in the West, including the destruction of the family: engagement.html.
This is the gist of David Ben Gurion's prediction of how the world would be in 1987: bengur62.jpg. For a bigger image see bengur62.gif.
For background on this see tmf.html.
To shift the USSR from "Stalinism" to "Trotskyism", they had to loosen the screws; in the process, they lost control there.
The notion of restoring Communism to its roots - to its original purity, by which is meant to the Trotskyist period (before Stalin), might be compared to restoring Catholicism to its original roots, to the way it was before Constantine, i.e. before it did a deal with the Empire, before it became "Romish". This was a major aim of the Protestant movement; it is a prominent theme in Jehovahs Witness literature; but it was also promoted by rebels within the Catholic Church during the 1960s. The Second Vatican Council was, on the one hand, "modernising", and on the other, restoring that original purity.
In both cases, getting rid of "anti-Semitism" was an important component of the "reform".
Pope John XXIII, then, was the Gorbachev of the Catholic Church.
For a Soviet comment on the Vatican-II politics of the Catholic Church, including the rapproachment with Judaism, see Yuri Ivanov's book, Caution: Zionism! He writes,
{p. 146} The Pope was speaking on television. ... The Parisians ... did not know that on the mantle of Paul VI, glittering on their TV screens, there lay the shadow of the Vatican Cardinal Augustin Bea, who had long ago abandoned his Jewish faith to embrace Catholicism in order to help cement the alliance between the Catholic Church and the Jewish Church by means of the Second {p. 147} Vatican Council Declaration of November 20, 1964 {endquote} ivanov.html.
Left literature typically denies that the USSR was created by Jews. Similarly, Christians usually deny that the first Christians were Jews.
League of Rights literature, and Nazi literature, says that the USSR was created by Jews, and maintains that this remained so.
The truth is in between.
Isaac Deutscher wrote that the Bolshevik Government, in its first years, was run by "emigres had lived many years in the West", who looked down on Russian "backwardness" and pursued "internationalist" politics:
"... they were Marxists in partibus infidelium, West European revolutionaries acting against a non-congenial Oriental background, which ... tried to impose its tyranny upon them. Only revolution in the West could relieve them from that tyranny ... "
"No sooner had Bolshevism mentally withdrawn into its national shell than this attitude became untenable. The party of the revolution had to stoop to its semi-Asiatic environment. It had to cut itself loose from the specifically Western tradition of Marxism ... "
Beria and Gorbachev attempted to return to this "Western" Marxism: each emphatically rejected Stalin. But Deutscher was a Jewish Trotskytist, and this "Western" Marxism is Trotskyism by another name: beria.html.
{end}
The early Soviet Union: after Lenin and Trotsky, but before Stalin's ascendancy: soviet-union-early.html.
Red Symphony, by Dr. J. Landowsky; translated by George Knupffer. Stalin's Formal Communism (Bonapartism) cf Trotsky's Real Communism.
Bears on the fact that Communism seems to be continuing, Trotskist/Fabian/New Left style, despite the fall of the USSR. Open Borders, Feminism, Gay Marriage, the World Court, the Kyoto Protocol, "Hate" Laws which suppress open discussion, Minority rights over the Majority, these are the signs. Stalin stole their conspiracy; his legacy had to be defeated, just as much as Aryanism and Christianity: red-symphony.html.
Back to the Communism index: zioncom.html.
Write to me at contact.html.
