Saturday, February 2, 2008

Senator Joe McCarthy and the communist threat

Senator Joe McCarthy is so famous for his investigations into the communist criminal conspiracy in the U.S.A. that anyone today who opposes communism is labled a "McCarthyist." It's a NEGATIVE label and it implies that the speaker believes in ghosts and boogiemen.

Yet, recently released Soviet and U.S. government documents alledgedly prove the Senator from Wisconsin was almost 100% right; his list of suspected communist agents inside the U.S. government was not so far fetched after all. But that doesn't mean we'll have another national investigation. Nobody investigates the communitarians... nobody suspects Amitai Etzioni of having ulterior motives. Anyone who's attending their local sustainable development meetings is battling the massive forces gained from the results of the successful global infiltration.

Here's an exchange on the subject between Israel Shamir and Peter Myers:

(1) McCarthy - from Shamir

From: "Israel Shamir" <> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008
18:11:19 +0200


if McCarthy was right, and the US were infiltrated by Commies, why in 1991 the USSR collapsed, not the US? Alas, McCarthy was not right; the article you publish is outright ridiculous: "the disastrous Yalta and Potsdam agreements" were the best the West could get out of victorious
Red Army, while without it, Russians would continue to Greece and Italy and France to help the communist forces. These agreements were disastrous only if one is very keen on more war, but both Russia and England/US were tired of war by 1945. "The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by denying military support" is another nonsense of the deranged author: in 1950, one year later, the US fought Mao's China directly in Korea and was beaten. The people of China supported Mao, and the US feelings about Chiang made no difference.

In your preamble, you speak of millions killed by Mao. Do not forget: all these numbers are invention of their enemy. Nobody could count victims at any time. Mao saved millions, by kicking the western imperialists out of China. This liberal squeak about dead is really not worthy of you: people live and die all the time; what is important - whether the policy in question helps those who are alive to live in dignity. From this point of view, Tiananmen square, 89 was a good and positive thing: as an amputation of a diseased limb for salvation of the rest. And Tiananmen was possible because of the glorious Cultural Revolution - if Russians would have a similar one, the USSR would not collapse. We should not be afraid of arguing about past: this way we define the future.

La Havana

(3) McCarthy - reply to Shamir, Peter M., February 2, 2008


There is one well-known leftist who has attested the disastrous nature of Mao’s reign: Pierre Ryckmans, alias Simon Leys.

Ryckmans was a Sinologist who datailed Mao’s destruction of China’s heritage. His books shatter all myths about Mao.

{quote} He taught Chinese literature at the Australian National University, where he supervised the honours thesis of current Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd[1] and later was Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Sydney, from 1987 to 1993. ... {endquote}

Whatever good Mao did was undone by his excesses; they are the reason why China changed course.

McCarthy, like most people on the “Far Right”, had no understanding of the divide between Trotsky and Stalin, and the split of the Communist movement over this. Even the Sino-Soviet split only makes sense in terms of it - Khruschev and a Jewish faction had murdered Stalin:, whereas Mao remained a Stalinist.

McCarthy lumped all Communists together. He would have been amazed to learn that one faction of Communists had murdered Stalin. He could not see struggles WITHIN the Communist movement, and thus he misunderstood the historical forces transforming our world.

The Soviet Union fell, in part, because it got carried away by its victory in the Vietnam War. In the mid 1970s it was seen as militarily stronger and more socially cohesive than the US. That’s why China came to feel the USSR a greater threat than its old enemy the US. The Soviets considered “liberating” Western Europe, but moved into Afghanistan instead, falling into Zgigniew Brzezinsky’s trap.

Similarly the US, since its “victory” in the Cold War, also got carried away. Like the USSR it has exhaused its goodwill around the world. Its fall is probably closer than we think.

But the USSR also fell because Gorbachev supported Convergence, between the USSR & the US, to One World, as envisaged by Sakharov:

Before Sakharov, it had been articulated by David Ben Gurion. And before him, by H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell:

Consider especially David Ben Gurion’s prediction in 1962

"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."

What is the meaning of it? Of course the “planned economy” part of it has not happened - because of the machinations of Thatcherism and the Mont Pelerin Society (by the way, Karl Popper, one of its mentors, was also something of a Convergence advocate).

Bear in mind that Ben Gurion had been an admirer of Lenin.

The meaning of his 1962 prediction is that, therough Stalin, the Soviet Union had deviated from Lenin’s course. That it had to be brought back; and in particular Jewish guidance restored as it was before Stalin.

Equally, the West had to abandon “anti-semitsm”, racism, sexism etc, and become more like the early USSR in that “political correctness” sense.

The One World or None report of 1946 also advocated convergence, in its vision of World Government (a la the Baruch Plan):

Jews were prominent in that campaign.

Sakharov advocated Convergence. The following quotes are from his book 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

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 ... Only universal cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral ideals of socialism ...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} ...

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. ...

{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?} ...

{On the Vietnam War, Sakharov shows himself a Communist, whereas Solzhenitsyn supported the anti-Communists}

IN Vietnam ... 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 ... 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. ...

{Sakharov is a Green, as Gorbachev was to become}

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'. ...

Carbon dioxide from the burning of coal is altering the heat-reflecting qualities of the atmosphere. ...

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 Stalin? 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' oras 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. 75} A Four-stage Plan for Cooperation

{Sakharov's Plan for World Government; note the similarity to Ben Gurion’s language} ...

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. ... {end of Sakharov quotes}

Ben Gurion uses the same utopian 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.

KOLATCH, 1972) 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, maytransform 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

Sakharov's Jewish wife Elena Bonner continued his activities after his death.

Clearly, Gorbachev was following the path Sakharov enunciated.

What about today?

Political Correctness - forcing us dissidents to the margins of society. Gay Marriage - the victory of Androgyny, the final nail in the coffin of complementarity between men and women. Open Borders - free movement across national boundaries, undermining any pretense of sovereignty. The World Court - depicting all those it tries & punishes as “new Hitlers”. The Kyoto Protocol - I do support simple living, energy efficiency, & reduced waste; but the Kyoto Protocol is also an instrument of World Government.

Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296

No comments: