[The Sabbaticus]

Pro-American propaganda, warning, or combination of both?

29 YEARS AGO, Soviet defector and KGB operative Yuri Bezmenov, specializing in the fields of Marxist-Leninist propaganda and ideological subversion; warned us about the silent war being waged against America as part of a long term plan to take over and destroy the American system and way of life.

Watch this clip in AMAZEMENT as you realize he is describing EXACTLY what's happening in America today, where by Obama and his gang of Marxist usurpers who now have control of your government are just the culmination of a very long term plan, but are the ones who are about to bring it into fruition. Bezmenov was born in 1939 in Mytishchi, near Moscow to a high ranking Soviet Army officer. At the age of seventeen, he entered the Institute of Oriental Languages, a part of the Moscow State University which was under the direct control of the KGB and the Communist Central Committee. In addition to languages, he studied history, literature, and music, and became an expert on Indian culture. During his second year, Bezmenov sought to look like a person from India; his teachers encouraged this because graduates of the school were employed as diplomats, foreign journalists, or spies.[2] As a Soviet student, he was also required to take compulsory military training in which he was taught how to play "strategic war games" using the maps of foreign countries, as well as how to interrogate prisoners of war.[2]

[ThirdTerm]

I think his cunning plan failed to materialize and it was the Soviet Union which was gradually infiltrated by American propaganda, especially after the Carter era. Russians started to question the legitimacy of the Soviet government and love America's freedom. Some American Communists were Soviet spies who were working for Moscow and far-left groups on campus were funded by Moscow to bring about a Communist revolution in America. Nowadays, there are concerns that Chinese students and academics might exploit access to universities to gather intelligence and sensitive research, while U.S. lawmakers are pushing for the China-funded Confucius Institutes to be more tightly regulated or closed down.

Moscow, Russian Federation, 18 September 2012 – The first-ever Web publication of previously secret U.S. documents on Soviet dissidents, matched with reports and letters by the dissidents themselves from the Memorial Society Archives in Moscow, illuminate the landmark turning point during Jimmy Carter's presidency in the late 1970s when U.S. policy first elevated human rights concerns, and the dissidents led the international movement that discredited Soviet claims that attention to such issues was "interference in internal affairs."
The rise of Soviet dissent in the 1960s and 1970s played a catalytic role in the transformation of human rights into an international norm of expected state behavior, according to the newly-published documents; and while Soviet repression succeeded in the short term in exiling or imprisoning most of the leading dissidents, the resulting legitimacy deficit contributed to the collapse of the Communist system at the end of the 1980s.

The documents published today include highest-level memoranda to President Carter from his top advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Cyrus Vance, CIA assessments of the dissident movement and the Soviet government's reactions, and U.S. National Security Council discussions of the issue. The Memorial documents include contemporaneous reports written by dissidents such as Moscow Helsinki Group co-founder Lyudmila Alexeyeva about specific arrests, trials, and repressions - often in the form of personally-addressed letters to President Carter requesting U.S. attention to the issues.

Veterans of the Soviet dissent movement will join representatives of Memorial and the National Security Archive for a public discussion and reception at the Memorial building in Moscow (Karetny Ryad, No. 5/10) at 6 p.m. on September 18 to mark the launch of the Web publication - which appears in Russian on the Memorial Web pages and in English and Russian on the National Security Archive Web pages.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB391/

[One Degree]

I hardly think the plan failed when you look at the Socialists movements in the US, Europe, Latin America, etc.
They also support globalism. The world was very close to becoming globally socialist. It may still be.
If you don’t think the liberal movements aren’t backed by a plan for world socialism, then you are not paying attention. Granted even that is a ruse to get support for totalitarianism, but that is how you manipulate the masses to give up their freedom.

[Beren]

I wonder whether what ideology Moscow supports worldwide now. It's hardly Marxism.

[Albert]

I think this guy is bullshitting and just trying to profit by conspiracy theories like Alex Jones. The American political left has its history prior to Cold War. I seriously doubt it is a creation of KGB like he claims.

[quetzalcoatl]

I hardly think the plan failed when you look at the Socialists movements in the US, Europe, Latin America, etc.
They also support globalism. The world was very close to becoming globally socialist. It may still be.
If you don’t think the liberal movements aren’t backed by a plan for world socialism, then you are not paying attention. Granted even that is a ruse to get support for totalitarianism, but that is how you manipulate the masses to give up their freedom.

Support for internationalism is not limited to the left. The Libertarian Party, which for decades has functioned as the ideological vanguard for transnational capital, has as its three main ideological pillars the following:

1) Free movement of goods across national borders.
2) Free movement of capital across national borders.
3) Free movement of labor across national borders.

So, as you can see, both traditional socialism and capitalism, are intrinsically globalist in nature.

Populist movements on the right (and to a lesser degree, left-populism) oppose the movement towards globalization. There is a decentralist/distributionist movement within socialism, but it's orthogonal to both traditional neoliberalism, orthodox socialism, and establishment Republican and Democratic views (all of which are globalist).

Beyond that, there's a minor troglodyte anti-globalism based on ignorance: NWO, Illuminati, Jewish banking cartel, and anti-Fed conspiracy theories. These are incoherent rightist memes, propounded as distractions from the real material interests at work.

[One Degree]

Support for internationalism is not limited to the left. The Libertarian Party, which for decades has functioned as the ideological vanguard for transnational capital, has as its three main ideological pillars the following:

1) Free movement of goods across national borders.
2) Free movement of capital across national borders.
3) Free movement of labor across national borders.

So, as you can see, both traditional socialism and capitalism, are intrinsically globalist in nature.

Populist movements on the right (and to a lesser degree, left-populism) oppose the movement towards globalization. There is a decentralist/distributionist movement within socialism, but it's orthogonal to both traditional neoliberalism, orthodox socialism, and establishment Republican and Democratic views (all of which are globalist).

Beyond that, there's a minor troglodyte anti-globalism based on ignorance: NWO, Illuminati, Jewish banking cartel, and anti-Fed conspiracy theories. These are incoherent rightist memes, propounded as distractions from the real material interests at work.

I did not mean to indicate it was a strctly leftist goal. There seems to be a lot of ‘liberals’ who don’t understand they are pursuing international ‘socialism’ and very effectively. They don’t seem to see the connection even though it is in plain sight. I am not even sure a division between the right and left is actually in competition for internationalism. I think the left is simply being manipulated into pursuing a self defeating agenda because it is easier to organize the left to accomplish capitalists goals. This hints at conspiracy, but I just see it as the natural culmination of heirarchy and competition for power. The game is based upon producing a winner, so I don’t see it as a conspiracy when we point out the game was almost over.
Populism arose at a very convenient time, which historically something always does eventually to derail global conquest. Then someone starts again. It is in the structure of governing and humans. The ideology is irrelevant.

[quetzalcoatl]

There seems to be a lot of ‘liberals’ who don’t understand they are pursuing international ‘socialism’ and very effectively.

I'm unclear what sense you are attaching to the broad umbrella term "socialism," so I can neither argue for or against this proposition. If you are giving "socialism" the broadest possible meaning, from Debs to Trotsky, then the West has had nothing but various degrees of socialism since the last Great Depression - and arguably even earlier. Your argument would be much more effective if narrowed down a bit. What resting point are you hoping to bring the socialist train to a stop? Pre FDR? Pre-LBJ?

[SolarCross]

So Joe McCarthy was right after all.



He should get a posthumous knighthood or however else Americans use to honour patriots.

[One Degree]

I'm unclear what sense you are attaching to the broad umbrella term "socialism," so I can neither argue for or against this proposition. If you are giving "socialism" the broadest possible meaning, from Debs to Trotsky, then the West has had nothing but various degrees of socialism since the last Great Depression - and arguably even earlier. Your argument would be much more effective if narrowed down a bit. What resting point are you hoping to bring the socialist train to a stop? Pre FDR? Pre-LBJ?

The Shakers practiced Communism in the US before Marx was born and are considered the origin in the US. My umbrella includes all globalists as I see that as the issue rather than ideology. You either believe in a one world government or you don’t. Large government or small government. It does not matter what you call the government. These two views exist in various guises is all.
Socialism being in different stages of development is still Socialism. It is still competing which allows disingenuous arguments about whether it exists. It always exists just like a desire for autonomy. I have no objections to it’s existence, just it’s universal goals.

[SolarCross]

The Shakers practiced Communism in the US before Marx was born and are considered the origin in the US. My umbrella includes all globalists as I see that as the issue rather than ideology. You either believe in a one world government or you don’t. Large government or small government. It does not matter what you call the government. These two views exist in various guises is all.
Socialism being in different stages of development is still Socialism. It is still competing which allows disingenuous arguments about whether it exists. It always exists just like a desire for autonomy. I have no objections to it’s existence, just it’s universal goals.

Marxist-Leninist Communism is not even remotely the same thing as a bunch of hippy christians sharing their underwear, they work for completely different masters for one thing: the former diabolical and the latter divine. You are derailing this thread with your quakers and globalists, Yuri Bezmenov is not speaking of either.

[One Degree]

Marxist-Leninist Communism is not even remotely the same thing as a bunch of hippy christians sharing their underwear, they work for completely different masters for one thing: the former diabolical and the latter divine. You are derailing this thread with your quakers and globalists, Yuri Bezmenov is not speaking of either.

My comments demonstrate what he says should be viewed as a simple acknowledgement of how globalists operate and really should not even be debatable. His comments on the KGB are just addressing one factor that did indeed exist but is only part of the story and did not disappear with the Soviet Union breakup. I think you could even argue the breakup removed the taboo of Socialism making it acceptable in the West. Ironic.

[SolarCross]

My comments demonstrate what he says should be viewed as a simple acknowledgement of how globalists operate and really should not even be debatable. His comments on the KGB are just addressing one factor that did indeed exist but is only part of the story and did not disappear with the Soviet Union breakup. I think you could even argue the breakup removed the taboo of Socialism making it acceptable in the West. Ironic.

You moved the focus from marxist-leninist totalitarianism to "globalism" because the latter is your personal hobby horse and you don't care at all about the former. @quetzalcoatl, for once, was (semi) right to point out that "globalism" belongs at least as much to free societies as totalitarian ones. Since when was freedom of movement, goods and funds planks of marxist-leninism? They want to smash freedom not enable it.

[One Degree]

You moved the focus from marxist-leninist totalitarianism to "globalism" because the latter is your personal hobby horse and you don't care at all about the former. @quetzalcoatl, for once, was (semi) right to point out that "globalism" belongs at least as much to free societies as totalitarian ones. Since when was freedom of movement, goods and funds planks of marxist-leninism? They want to smash freedom not enable it.

Please tell me what ideology has not been met with charges of totalitarianism? Narrowing the argument to specific ideologies prevents you from seeing the commonality of the problem. Yes, my ‘hobby horse’ is pointing this out. The constant charges of my view being offtopic just demonstrates how invested you are in your fantasy the ideology is of most importance. Monarchy failed, communism failed, fascism failed, and liberal democracy is failing. Do you really believe this is because they had the ‘wrong ideology’? All we have to do is find the right ideology for everyone and then the leaders will no longer be corruptible? Maybe you guys are missing the topic instead of me?

[SolarCross]

Please tell me what ideology has not been met with charges of totalitarianism? Narrowing the argument to specific ideologies prevents you from seeing the commonality of the problem. Yes, my ‘hobby horse’ is pointing this out. The constant charges of my view being offtopic just demonstrates how invested you are in your fantasy the ideology is of most importance. Monarchy failed, communism failed, fascism failed, and liberal democracy is failing. Do you really believe this is because they had the ‘wrong ideology’? All we have to do is find the right ideology for everyone and then the leaders will no longer be corruptible? Maybe you guys are missing the topic instead of me?

Are you seriously implying that marxist-leninism isn't really a totalitarian ideology? WTF is wrong with you?

BTW monarchy hasn't failed, all the of the very best, most prosperous, places to live in the world continue to be monarchies, even absolute monarchies like UAE or Qatar (if UAE and Qatar have issues it is because of Islam not monarchy). Democracy has its systemic weaknesses but in what sense is it failing in any macro-sense? The totalitarians, fascist and communist are all but in the rubbish bin of history, that much we agree.

[SolarCross]

To get back on the topic of Yuri Bezmenov's revelations:

Presumably the puppet masters of this plot are all dead or retired so to what extent does what they started have a life of its own now or is just atavistically continuing to propagate on inertia alone? In the latter case all that need be done presumably is ride it out and things will eventually go back to normal. In the former case a proactive defence must be organised.

[One Degree]

Are you seriously implying that marxist-leninism isn't really a totalitarian ideology? WTF is wrong with you?

BTW monarchy hasn't failed, all the of the very best, most prosperous, places to live in the world continue to be monarchies, even absolute monarchies like UAE or Qatar (if UAE and Qatar have issues it is because of Islam not monarchy). Democracy has its systemic weaknesses but in what sense is it failing in any macro-sense? The totalitarians, fascist and communist are all but in the rubbish bin of history, that much we agree.

No, Communism is not totalitarian. It is the government structure of heirarchy necessary to govern large numbers that ends up making it totalitarian. Just like Representative democracy. I agree ‘benevolent monarchy’ is an acceptable form of government. You just need to make sure the monarch remains benevolent, just like you need to make sure the president, chairman, etc remains benevolent. Humans are very adaptable. They don’t need a perfect system of government. They just need a just system of government.

The main ideas never disappear. They just take on different guises.

Edit: yes, I took liberties with the definition of totalitarianism to offset it’s deception to the point. I felt it was being used to confuse totalitarianism with Oligarchy.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Pro-American propaganda, warning, or combination of both?

Neither. It wasn't 'pro-American propaganda' - it claimed that the USA was failing. It dressed itself up as a 'warning', but really it was an attempt to push hard-right nationalism, and to demonise the 1980s Democratic party (Mondale the dictator? LOL).

It obviously bore no relation to what happened in the next 30 years (seems worth pointing out the guy had defected 15 years before this, so he'd spent more of his adult life outside the USSR and it system than in it; his understanding wouldn't necessarily be very good anyway, even if you trusted him).

The interviewer has a a track record that is, umm, "impressive"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin

[One Degree]

Neither. It wasn't 'pro-American propaganda' - it claimed that the USA was failing. It dressed itself up as a 'warning', but really it was an attempt to push hard-right nationalism, and to demonise the 1980s Democratic party (Mondale the dictator? LOL).

It obviously bore no relation to what happened in the next 30 years (seems worth pointing out the guy had defected 15 years before this, so he'd spent more of his adult life outside the USSR and it system than in it; his understanding wouldn't necessarily be very good anyway, even if you trusted him).

The interviewer has a a track record that is, umm, "impressive"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin

I agree with your first paragraph, but to dismiss the success of the KGB in changing the US is as absurd as dismissing the US success in instilling democratic and capitalists principles in Russia.

[SolarCross]

The interviewer has a a track record that is, umm, "impressive"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin

Trying to discredit the interviewee on the basis of the well meaning eccentricities of the interviewer, that's a new trick to me. What if the interviewer was as faultless as the saints in heaven? I guess then you'd have to go after the cameraman or the lady who made the tea.