Most observers have made the war in Ukraine about Vladimir Putin and his “paranoia.” They would prefer to say that Putin is in the traditional Russian imperial mold rather than in the communist mold. They have not understood that the communist mold is extremely flexible, even as communist tactics are flexible. It should be recalled that Stalin even aligned himself with Hitler, going against the sentiments of his own followers. How was this explained at the time? Stalin said that the main enemy of socialism was capitalism. Hitler was not a capitalist. The French and British were. Therefore, Stalin would side with Hitler. Later it became strategically necessary for Stalin to align himself with the West. Fascism once again became a term of abuse.
The tactical flexibility of the communists often requires that communists deny they are communists. Since 1991 communists around the world began calling themselves social democrats and even Democrats. This is especially true in the former Soviet Union.
Readers may suppose that communism no longer exists in Russia, that Russia’s rulers are nationalists. People may debate this point, but the Communist Party is the second largest political party in Russia today. The United Russia Party, which is the largest party, is full of “former” communists. It should be obvious that both the leading parties in Russia are one party. This fiction of two parties, with the smaller being overtly communist, is a classic communist deception. More significantly, the old communist elite of the USSR governs the country and dominates its institutions under non-communist slogans, behind the façade of the “oligarchs.” Western liberals portray Putin as an empty “grey man,” corrupted by power. But he has surrounded himself with people who either share a Marxist-Leninist perspective (like Igor Sechin), or worked for the KGB, or both.
I was just listening to Jonathan Fink, of the Silicon Curtain Podcast, interviewing Mark Galeotti, who said “Putin’s autocracy is not Stalinism.” And this much is true. Such statements, however, are nuanced nothings. Going through expert interviews you will hear these nuanced nothings repeated, one after another. It is not surprising, therefore, when Galeotti says that Russia’s actions have defied the predictions of analysts for many years. One might ask what the predictive value of a nuanced nothing might be. Most analysts are clueless regarding Russia’s real rulers. They somehow missed Moscow’s support for communist regimes around the globe. They somehow missed Russia’s support for North Korea and the CCP in China. Once we understand that the communists are still running Russia, Putin’s policies and actions become understandable, and sometimes predictable.
It was KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn who predicted the collapse of communism in 1984. He said it would be part of a deception strategy. He said that the communists would give up power in Russia, but they would remain in control behind the scenes. In Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception, published in 1995, we read of a “military/nationalist option [for Russia] as the third course upon which the Kremlin strategists might embark in future to adjust the style and leadership of a new government if, for example, Yeltsin was considered to have exhausted his usefulness in extracting concessions from the West.” Golitsyn presciently added, “In this context, the Chechnyan ‘crisis’ can be seen not as a likely cause of a military coup, but as a possible planned prelude to a change of government. The new [post-Yeltsin Russian] government might be military or nationalist. Certain indicators that this is envisaged, are apparent.”[xi]
Golitsyn therefore predicted the nature of the post-Yeltsin regime in Russia, and how it would present itself to the world. A renewed Chechnyan “crisis” did indeed occur in 1999, and prefigured Yeltsin stepping down in favor of KGB Lt. Col. Putin. How could Golitsyn have guessed the circumstances of Yeltsin’s resignation so accurately? How did he guess the nature of the coming regime? While all the other pundits and analysts were wrong, Golitsyn was right again. Yet almost everyone ignored him.
One of Golitsyn’s suggestions was that any risky strategy, like Gorbachev’s perestroika in 1989, would obligate China to “play it safe.” As one bloc country takes a chance, the other must retrench. Even as Moscow let communist regimes fall in Eastern Europe in 1989, Beijing smashed the protesters in Tiananmen Square. Consider, by way of analogy, what is done in cataract surgery. You do not operate on both eyes at the same time. This is why the Chinese refrained from blockading Taiwan last year, even as they prepared to carry out a blockade. The action would only take place once Russia had secured Ukraine. By the end of last summer, however, the Russian offensive had failed. The Ukrainians were successfully counterattacking. China did not start a war in the Far East because that would be doing cataract surgery in both eyes at once. And so, Golitsyn’s rule of thumb proved right as China drew back from war at the end of summer 2022.
Golitsyn predicted, before anyone else, that Russia and China would never become capitalist democracies. When most pundits expressed optimism about the changes in Russia and capitalism in China, Golitsyn was issuing warnings. The capitalist dalliances of Moscow and Beijing were part of a communist strategy, he said. There was no change of heart in either country.
In 1995 Golitsyn wrote, “The US military should pull back from partnership with both the Russian and the Chinese armed forces and should revert to regarding them as their long-term adversaries rather than unwittingly helping them to implement their strategy.”[xii] This is what our policymakers are only now realizing. But it was foreseen, decades ago, by a man who was denounced by the media as “paranoid.”
Excellent summation of the deal that will break America.
My only philosophical edit would be to replace revolution (a destructive, deadly, and extremely dangerous gamble) with the idea of restoration (where we reset, and return to our norms of a Constitutional Republic based on Christian and conservative values that protect freedom and liberty).
Thanks for posting this. It's good, but does it really answer the question implied in the title?
"By framing the issue in terms favorable to the Marxists, the Marxists always win."
Are they able to get away with this because the Republicans are too stupid to figure out the trick, as the article suggests?
No, I think there are other reasons. For one thing, the Republicans also want to increase the debt, and spend more. The Republicans aren't "Marxists", true. But almost all of them are "lefties". Marxism is not the real threat, Leftism is. There's a difference.
There were before the white man, 279 American Indian tribes who all staked out their territory for survival. They had their wars with their neighbors! They only had bows and arrows. Now we have supersonic atomic missiles that travel faster than sound! It’s time to go back to bows and arrows and bring common sense ideas back to keep the peace!
Ukraine may be the trigger to extermination. Just keep poking the Bear!
IT’S COMMUNISM, STUPID
Most observers have made the war in Ukraine about Vladimir Putin and his “paranoia.” They would prefer to say that Putin is in the traditional Russian imperial mold rather than in the communist mold. They have not understood that the communist mold is extremely flexible, even as communist tactics are flexible. It should be recalled that Stalin even aligned himself with Hitler, going against the sentiments of his own followers. How was this explained at the time? Stalin said that the main enemy of socialism was capitalism. Hitler was not a capitalist. The French and British were. Therefore, Stalin would side with Hitler. Later it became strategically necessary for Stalin to align himself with the West. Fascism once again became a term of abuse.
The tactical flexibility of the communists often requires that communists deny they are communists. Since 1991 communists around the world began calling themselves social democrats and even Democrats. This is especially true in the former Soviet Union.
Readers may suppose that communism no longer exists in Russia, that Russia’s rulers are nationalists. People may debate this point, but the Communist Party is the second largest political party in Russia today. The United Russia Party, which is the largest party, is full of “former” communists. It should be obvious that both the leading parties in Russia are one party. This fiction of two parties, with the smaller being overtly communist, is a classic communist deception. More significantly, the old communist elite of the USSR governs the country and dominates its institutions under non-communist slogans, behind the façade of the “oligarchs.” Western liberals portray Putin as an empty “grey man,” corrupted by power. But he has surrounded himself with people who either share a Marxist-Leninist perspective (like Igor Sechin), or worked for the KGB, or both.
I was just listening to Jonathan Fink, of the Silicon Curtain Podcast, interviewing Mark Galeotti, who said “Putin’s autocracy is not Stalinism.” And this much is true. Such statements, however, are nuanced nothings. Going through expert interviews you will hear these nuanced nothings repeated, one after another. It is not surprising, therefore, when Galeotti says that Russia’s actions have defied the predictions of analysts for many years. One might ask what the predictive value of a nuanced nothing might be. Most analysts are clueless regarding Russia’s real rulers. They somehow missed Moscow’s support for communist regimes around the globe. They somehow missed Russia’s support for North Korea and the CCP in China. Once we understand that the communists are still running Russia, Putin’s policies and actions become understandable, and sometimes predictable.
It was KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn who predicted the collapse of communism in 1984. He said it would be part of a deception strategy. He said that the communists would give up power in Russia, but they would remain in control behind the scenes. In Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception, published in 1995, we read of a “military/nationalist option [for Russia] as the third course upon which the Kremlin strategists might embark in future to adjust the style and leadership of a new government if, for example, Yeltsin was considered to have exhausted his usefulness in extracting concessions from the West.” Golitsyn presciently added, “In this context, the Chechnyan ‘crisis’ can be seen not as a likely cause of a military coup, but as a possible planned prelude to a change of government. The new [post-Yeltsin Russian] government might be military or nationalist. Certain indicators that this is envisaged, are apparent.”[xi]
Golitsyn therefore predicted the nature of the post-Yeltsin regime in Russia, and how it would present itself to the world. A renewed Chechnyan “crisis” did indeed occur in 1999, and prefigured Yeltsin stepping down in favor of KGB Lt. Col. Putin. How could Golitsyn have guessed the circumstances of Yeltsin’s resignation so accurately? How did he guess the nature of the coming regime? While all the other pundits and analysts were wrong, Golitsyn was right again. Yet almost everyone ignored him.
One of Golitsyn’s suggestions was that any risky strategy, like Gorbachev’s perestroika in 1989, would obligate China to “play it safe.” As one bloc country takes a chance, the other must retrench. Even as Moscow let communist regimes fall in Eastern Europe in 1989, Beijing smashed the protesters in Tiananmen Square. Consider, by way of analogy, what is done in cataract surgery. You do not operate on both eyes at the same time. This is why the Chinese refrained from blockading Taiwan last year, even as they prepared to carry out a blockade. The action would only take place once Russia had secured Ukraine. By the end of last summer, however, the Russian offensive had failed. The Ukrainians were successfully counterattacking. China did not start a war in the Far East because that would be doing cataract surgery in both eyes at once. And so, Golitsyn’s rule of thumb proved right as China drew back from war at the end of summer 2022.
Golitsyn predicted, before anyone else, that Russia and China would never become capitalist democracies. When most pundits expressed optimism about the changes in Russia and capitalism in China, Golitsyn was issuing warnings. The capitalist dalliances of Moscow and Beijing were part of a communist strategy, he said. There was no change of heart in either country.
In 1995 Golitsyn wrote, “The US military should pull back from partnership with both the Russian and the Chinese armed forces and should revert to regarding them as their long-term adversaries rather than unwittingly helping them to implement their strategy.”[xii] This is what our policymakers are only now realizing. But it was foreseen, decades ago, by a man who was denounced by the media as “paranoid.”
JR Nyquist
Excellent summation of the deal that will break America.
My only philosophical edit would be to replace revolution (a destructive, deadly, and extremely dangerous gamble) with the idea of restoration (where we reset, and return to our norms of a Constitutional Republic based on Christian and conservative values that protect freedom and liberty).
Excellent!
However, quite impossible.
If we won't be dominated by corporations backed by the government, or the government itself (Communism), we will be dead.
I will hold hope of a restoration, while being prepared for the revolution.
agree 100% with your bold highlighting, Edwin
Thanks for posting this. It's good, but does it really answer the question implied in the title?
"By framing the issue in terms favorable to the Marxists, the Marxists always win."
Are they able to get away with this because the Republicans are too stupid to figure out the trick, as the article suggests?
No, I think there are other reasons. For one thing, the Republicans also want to increase the debt, and spend more. The Republicans aren't "Marxists", true. But almost all of them are "lefties". Marxism is not the real threat, Leftism is. There's a difference.
Communists always control both sides.
ALWAYS!
There were before the white man, 279 American Indian tribes who all staked out their territory for survival. They had their wars with their neighbors! They only had bows and arrows. Now we have supersonic atomic missiles that travel faster than sound! It’s time to go back to bows and arrows and bring common sense ideas back to keep the peace!
Ukraine may be the trigger to extermination. Just keep poking the Bear!
"World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Einstein