New Lies for Old

[tommyedison]

I haven't read the book but I am curious to know the viewpoint of those who have about it.

The book was published in 1984. It predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, increasing freedom in Russia and collapse of the Berlin Wall. However the book further goes on to say that all this was "planned" by the KGB and the Communists. It says that they intend to backstab the West by luring it with their new freedom. Their ultimate goal is domination.

It sounds like nonsense. However the fact that is disturbing me is that according to Amazon reviews and a general search on Google, more than 94% of the book's predictions have come true.

Do you really think the book could be correct.

Here is an anonymous review of the book after doing a Google search. However there are many other reviews on the Internet.

Review

[tommyedison]

Well? Any thoughts?

Additionally I found this article which could be relevant to this topic:

Link

[Johnrgt]

One wonders why people wit the power to coordinate and execute such elaborte, secretive plans would need to do so.

JohnRGT

[tommyedison]

One wonders why people wit the power to coordinate and execute such elaborte, secretive plans would need to do so.

JohnRGT

You think that if such a plan existed, it would leak out? That there would be too much hue and cry over it?

But don't you think that that could be one of the best tools to keep such a plan secret.

Even though most of the preditions of Golitsyn were true, nobody takes him seriously.

Before 9/11, one could have thought that a plan to bomb WTC would leak out. But it didn't. The fact that such types of plans seem too melodramatic is one of the best reasons that they can be kept secret.

At any rate, what evidence is there that the Communists really were defeated in 1991. In fact there are facts which could be construed as evidence to the contrary like Putin's power grab, military exercises between Russia and China and the fact that Russia is continuously investing in defense despite being a "broke" nation.

Didn't Lenin pretend to ease tyranny through his NEP to prompt Western flow of money in Russia? What could prevent the Communists from doing this again at a much bigger scale?

And it is not only Golitsyn who has written about this. Jan Sejna (Soviet defector) too spoke about a plan to fake collapse of Warsaw pact in his book "We will bury you"

[Johnrgt]

Hi TE,

I'm not big on conspiracies, but since you were kind enough to respond to my post, here are some thoughts:

<<Even though most of the preditions of Golitsyn were true, nobody takes him seriously.>>

Think of all that would have to predicted, planned, and executed. All from people that have stolen every piece of innovation they've ever claimed as their own, and who couldn't figure out how to feed themselves for 60 years. TEven now, they can't tap into some of the greatest deposits of natural riches on the planet in their backyard.

I don't believe there's a plan afoot.

<<Before 9/11, one could have thought that a plan to bomb WTC would leak out. But it didn't.>>

We weren't listening.

Millionsif not billions, werer spent by the FedGov on experts who kept warning that terroists would hit the US sooner or later. We ignored them. (I remember such talk from the early 80s on.)

Further, al Qaeda is a small organization that conspired for a dramatic event that required relatively little. (We can't go by the events and impact of 9/11 in this conversation -- only what it would take to bring it about.)

What you're talking about would require coordination that goes far, far beyond anything ever undertaken historically.

<<And it is not only Golitsyn who has written about this. Jan Sejna (Soviet defector) too spoke about a plan to fake collapse of Warsaw pact in his book "We will bury you">>

More of the same doesn't a conspiracy make.

For starters, how do these folks know about it? Why aren't they, their famillies, their friends, their publishers and marketers dead? How are these leaks any less predictable than many aspects of The Plan?

I've lived in and have family in Europe. The conspiracies that dominate conversation and news coverage there are shocking by US standards.

(Didn't a French "journalist" write a book or two about how Israel actually coordinated and exectured 9/11 to get the US involved in the Middle East? Wasn't it/they on the French besteseller list for an eternity?)

All the best, TE.

JohnRgt

[tommyedison]

Think of all that would have to predicted, planned, and executed.  All from people that have stolen every piece of innovation they've ever claimed as their own, and who couldn't figure out how to feed themselves for 60 years.  TEven now, they can't tap into some of the greatest deposits of natural riches on the planet in their backyard. 

I don't believe there's a plan afoot.

Hi Johnrgt,

The Soviets might have stolen each and every innovation from the United States but that only goes to prove that the Soviets were much better at spying than the CIA and the massive intelligence failure that occured in the United States from '45 into the '80s. Consider the influx of spies at high ranking postions such as the Cambridge Four.

I don't think the American public and intellectuals were strong in politics during the Cold War. Consider the '60s revolution and the overwhelmingly liberal intellectuals. They were very convenient tools for the Communists to spread their propaganda to the West.

Just because the Soviets could innovate doesn't mean that they weren't clever in politics. They were ruthless and were prepared to do anything to achieve their goal.

More of the same doesn't a conspiracy make.

For starters, how do these folks know about it?  Why aren't they, their famillies, their friends, their publishers and marketers dead?  How are these leaks any less predictable than many aspects of The Plan? 

Golitsin was a top KGB officer before he defected to the West. He now lives in hiding.

I've lived in and have family in Europe.  The conspiracies that dominate conversation and news coverage there are shocking  by US standards.

(Didn't a French "journalist" write a book or two about how Israel actually coordinated and exectured 9/11 to get the US involved in the Middle East?  Wasn't it/they on the French besteseller list for an eternity?)

All the best, TE.

JohnRgt

Consider the following quotes by two Communists

"War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in thirty to forty years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist."

Dimitri Manuilski, of the Lenin School of Political Warfare [1933]

Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.

We want to accomplish three things: One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe. Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe. Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with the Strategic Defense Initiative."

Mikhail Gorbachev in speech to the Politburo in 1987.

"Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika...is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy."

Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

"We will proceed toward better socialism rather than away from it. We are saying this honestly, without trying to fool our own people or the world. Any hopes that we will begin to build a different, non-socialist society and go over to the other camp are unrealistic and futile. Those in the West who expect us to give up socialism will be disappointed."

Mikhail Gorbachev Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World 1988

"I am a Communist, a convinced Communist! For some that may be a fantasy. But to me it is my main goal."

Mikhail Gorbachev New York Times 1989

Further how do you explain the heavy investment in defense by Russia, Russia developing new nuclear weapons (Link),

Putin's power grab after the Beslan tragedy, Russia again coming into the list of non-free nations since '91, mysterious poisoning of Yushenko, Sino-Russian military exercises, etc.

Conspiracy or not, the way Russia is behaving, it seems it is heading towards Communism.

[tommyedison]

In addition to the above, I found the following quote from Major-General defector Jan Sejna's "We will bury you"

The Soviet Strategic Plan for the establishment of their 'Socialism' worldwide does, without doubt, exist and, however flexible and pragmatic Soviet policy appears, it is essentially directed towards the achievements of the Plans objectives - objectives which have been, are and will remain utterly inimical to and subversive of the freedoms enjoyed by the states of the Western world.

It had always been made clear that the Plan's objectives were firm but the means and methods of achieving them were flexible. This flexibility often serves to confound Western political analysts, who tend to confuse a change in tactics with a profound change in Soviet thinking. An example of this was the process of 'de-Stalinization' carried out by Khruschev which caused observers in the West to think that the leadership had abandoned Stalin's objectives; in fact, they had only dropped his methods. One of the basic problems of the West is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet 'grand design' at all. Those rejecting this concept unwittingly serve Soviet efforts to conceal their objectives and further complicate the process of determining such objectives. While many Western political analysts scoff at the idea of a coherent Soviet strategy, Brezhnev has said that 'the liquidation of colonial empires was effectively completed in the seventies. The sphere of Imperialist domination in the world has narrowed.

Another cause for concern is that many people in the West, including some of its leaders, do not understand the real significance of detente to the Soviet Union. When, along with other Czech leaders, I met Brezhnev in Moscow in 1966, we discussed detente, and these were his words: 'Some Left extremists misunderstand detente. They think we are surrendering to the Capitalists. They don't understand that it gives us a free hand - a free hand to almost all the Communist movements in the world, and this is most important.

Whatever temporary accommodations the Soviet leaders are prepared to make, their long-term objectives remain constant. In Khrushchev's words, 'We will bury you.

Explaining the difference between Mao's attitude and his own, he launched into one of his typical peasant allegories. Mao believed Communism could only triumph by force, he told us. 'But I prefer to follow my mother's example. When she wanted little Nikita to do some chore, she always tried to persuade me with a cake, but I well knew she kept a big stick in the cupboard. The Soviet Union must act in the same way towards the West. Mao's militarism will lead him to be incinerated. The Warsaw Pact should pursue a more subtle course, and only reach for the big stick if other methods fail.

Why is such a conspiracy impossible?

Simply because it is big and too melodramatic? If bigness is the standard, then there are a lot of things that should be impossible but which have happened.

I also advice you to read this: Russia bares its military teeth

[Johnrgt]

I agree that Russia is still Russia and that its so called democracy is unstable. I just don't agree that everything post ~1989 is part of a plan to trick the West into something.

According to Frontline, Putin's administrtation is the first to try to curtail military costs by making it clear that Russia will retaliate against aggressors with nuclear weapons -- apparently, their armies aren't what they were. Further, there's no political will to sustain the military that typified the USSR. Nor do they have the moneys to do much more than build a nuclear arsenal, a relatively cost effective weapon.

They've had the physics and the will to sell nuclear arms/tech for some time now. Don't forget that all too many of their nukes simply didn't work when inspected during disarmament, so I don't see a Russian build-up as indicative of a plan for world domination.

I appreciate the quotes you offered. I just don't see how the feelings of communists, and Europe's love of conspiracy theories, show that all post '89 Russian activity is part of a Plan.

You said it best:

"Conspiracy or not, the way Russia is behaving, it seems it is heading towards Communism"

Objectivists have never assumed that a regime collapse in Russia indicates a significant, longterm change in Russian culture/politics.

All the best to you TE.

Johnrgt

[tommyedison]

According to Frontline, Putin's administrtation is the first to try to curtail military costs by making it clear that Russia will retaliate against aggressors with nuclear weapons -- apparently, their armies aren't what they were. 

You mean to say that if US threatens Iran or the Moslems with nuclear action, the army of US is not what it was?

Further, there's no political will to sustain the military that typified the USSR.

What Russians Think

Nor do they have the moneys to do much more than build a nuclear arsenal, a relatively cost effective weapon.

There has been a convenient supply of Western taxpayer money and investments for the Russians to build a nuclear arsenal.

They've had the physics and the will to sell nuclear arms/tech for some time now.  Don't forget that all too many of their nukes simply didn't work when inspected during disarmament, so I don't see a Russian build-up as indicative of a plan for world domination.

And how do you know that the Russians hadn't built those unworkable nuclear arms specifically for that purpose - to make it appear that its nukes didn't work.

Objectivists have never assumed that a regime collapse in Russia indicates a significant, longterm change in Russian culture/politics.

That is why US should regard Russia very suspiciously. Who knows they might even be funding the terrorists. I have always wondered how the Islamists get so much money.

First Yukos, now VimpelComp

Further proof that Kremlin wants Communism again

[tommyedison]

To add to the above

Russia intends to arm Syria

Russia building nuclear power plant for Iran

Russia lost 100 suitcase nukes to terrorists?

Dismantling of Democracy in Russia

Russia accuses US of Chechen Terror

[Johnrgt]

Hi TE,

I’m trying to do research on the Consumption Tax. Time being finite, this will be my final post on this unless something spectacular develops.

I must have phrased badly Re Frontline’s comments on Russia.

Frontline reported that the Russian military is being downsized; I didn’t infer that from Russia’s explicit warning (to China, no doubt) that Russia will retaliate with nuclear weapons if her sovereignty is challenged. The feel, if not stated outright (memory), was that Russia had better things to spend her limited moneys on. (You can probably watch the episode on pbs.org) (I think Russia is spending like 80% of her shrunken military budget on nukes.)

Further, since when was the USSR military much to worry about? The closed societies of the Eastern Block made it easy for the Soviets to fake us out, but we can now confirm what Objectivist intellectuals were thinking all along – they were nothing.

Equipment didn’t and doesn’t work. Soldiers would disappear from their posts for weeks. Ships were rusting apart. Etc, etc. Just think of the ineptitude and resulting poverty in We The Living, and you’ll have a good parallel to all I’ve read/heard Re the Soviet military.

Our CIA was held back in the USSR because it was a closed society. (Same in Iraq, BTW.) While the KGB had unbelievable capabilities, our openness made things easier for them here than things were for us there.

When did the US threaten Muslim nations with nukes, explicitly or otherwise? This “war” should’ve ended on the night of 9/11. Instead, we’re too afraid to send in too many troops, too afraid to kill civilians, too afraid to damage holly sites, etc. I have a hard time believing that we’ve threatened anyone with the bomb. I also have a hard time believing that the President who would order such an attack would survive the order – that’s if the super-educated-in-the-humanities Pentagon brass don’t refuse the order to begin with.

You wrote:

“And how do you know that the Russians hadn't built those unworkable nuclear arms specifically for that purpose - to make it appear that its nukes didn't work.”

You can’t be serious. This is my initiation puzzle to this site, right?

(Let’s not forget what Newton said about those who entertain the arbitrary.)

You wrote:

“That is why US should regard Russia very suspiciously. Who knows they might even be funding the terrorists.”

I agree with you. Like we’ve already said, a regime collapse doesn’t mean Russia isn’t Russia anymore. We have to keep an eye open. It is amazing how much of the potential threat you’re concerned with was enabled by stupid US policy – feed them when they’re starving; help them beat Hitler; legitimize them by allowing them a huge sphere of influence; let them in to the UN.

Russia certainly supports the terrorists indirectly, by trading with and helping Iran with her nuclear program, and through other activity.

All the best to you, TE. I appreciate your efforts Re this thread.

JohnRGT

[tommyedison]

Hi Johnrgt,

Thank you for the reply

I’m trying to do research on the Consumption Tax. Time being finite, this will be my final post on this unless something spectacular develops.

I agree it might not be worthwile to discuss this anymore. However I will post my last reply to you.

Further, since when was the USSR military much to worry about?  The closed societies of the Eastern Block made it easy for the Soviets to fake us out, but we can now confirm what Objectivist intellectuals were thinking all along – they were nothing.

Equipment didn’t and doesn’t work.  Soldiers would disappear from their posts for weeks.  Ships were rusting apart. Etc, etc.  Just think of the ineptitude and resulting poverty in We The Living, and you’ll have a good parallel to all I’ve read/heard Re the Soviet military.

USSR is nothing to worry about. American intellectuals are because it is they who are destroying the US. And the 'evil empires' of the world are exploiting it and succeeding.

Our CIA was held back in the USSR because it was a closed society.  (Same in Iraq, BTW.)  While the KGB had unbelievable capabilities, our openness made things easier for them here than things were for us there.

Russia is still not very open. For e.g. no foreigner has been even allowed to enter the city built on Yamantau let alone the 400 sq.mile military complex itself.

And it is still a mystic culture. No wonder it still likes Communism.

BTW, the purpose of intelligence is exactly that. To penetrate the closed societies and get information - a job which the CIA has not performed admirably.

When did the US threaten Muslim nations with nukes, explicitly or otherwise?  This “war” should’ve ended on the night of 9/11.  Instead, we’re too afraid to send in too many troops, too afraid to kill civilians, too afraid to damage holly sites, etc.  I have a hard time believing that we’ve threatened anyone with the bomb.  I also have a hard time believing that the President who would order such an attack would survive the order – that’s if the super-educated-in-the-humanities Pentagon brass don’t refuse the order to begin with.

I never said that US threatened the Moslems with nukes. I am saying that it should have.

You wrote:

“And how do you know that the Russians hadn't built those unworkable nuclear arms specifically for that purpose - to make it appear that its nukes didn't work.”

You can’t be serious.  This is my initiation puzzle to this site, right?

(Let’s not forget what Newton said about those who entertain the arbitrary.)

I am serious. Since such a thing is objectively possible, the possibility must be entertained. And it is not wholly arbitrary as Russia has a track record of cheating.

You wrote:

“That is why US should regard Russia very suspiciously. Who knows they might even be funding the terrorists.”

I agree with you.  Like we’ve already said, a regime collapse doesn’t mean Russia isn’t Russia anymore.  We have to keep an eye open.  It is amazing how much of the potential threat you’re concerned with was enabled by stupid US policy...

That is what I don't like. As Miss Rand said no conspiracy can destroy America. America is too great for that. If America perishes it will be by intellectual default. And this is the card which enemies of US are playing. They are exploiting America's appeasement policy which America is showing no signs of changing.

There are two ways to look at the issue. According to the Golitsyn view(not what Golitsyn said, just my interpretation),

- Russia organizes Glasnot and Perestroika.

- It sets up Yeltsin who leads the public and organizes a coup of the evil empire surprising with little or no military resistance.

- The collapse of USSR is hailed by the West and money and investements start flowing into Russia.

- Russia starts developing military complexes and weapons with the money

- Russia starts inciting the Islamofascists with the help of 'ex-KGB' officers.

- Russia starts spreading anti-Americanism and liberalism in Europe and America especially in the universities and media and succeeds in generating anti-American sentiments

- Russia provides funding for 9/11 in order to divert Western attention from Russia and succeeds in doing so. Islam is the new enemy.

- Russia starts developing new nuclear missiles.

- Russia provides CIA intelligence saying Saddam connected with Al-Qaeda.

- Meanwhile Russia moves out WMDs and (explosives from Iraq (view expressed by Pentagon official who was dismissed for 'exceeding authority' in 2004)).

- Consequently America becomes even more unpopular as WMDs are not found.

- Russia updates its military technology to rival or surpass that of US.

- Russia provides Islamofascists with suitcase nukes or presses the button on the suitcase nukes itself to destroy major cities and destabilize America politically and economically. Islam is blamed as Russia has set up Islam as new enemy.

- US takes action against Islam nations.

- Russia and China fire nukes on US destroying a vast portion of it. A big portion of military and leadership is killed as it has no forewarning of the attack.

- US retaliates destroying a vast portion of Russia and China. However their military and leadership is saved by hiding in military bunkers immune from nuclear strike.

- Russia and China invade the US and conquer it.

Melodramatic yes. Impossible, I don't think so.

All the best to you, TE.  I appreciate your efforts Re this thread.

JohnRGT

Thank you