The Collapse of Communism: The Untold Story

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Robert Buchar, an associate professor and author of the Cinematography Program at Columbia College in Chicago. A political refugee from former Czechoslovakia, he is the producer of the documentary, Velvet Hangover, which is about Czech New Wave filmmakers, how they survived the period of “normalization” and their reflections on the so-called Velvet Revolution of 1989. He is also the author of  Czech New Wave Filmmakers in Interviews and And Reality be Damned… Undoing America: What The Media Didn’t Tell You About the End of the Cold War and Fall of Communism in Europe. He just currently finished the new feature length documentary film, The Collapse of Communism: The Untold Story.

FP: Robert Buchar, welcome to Frontpage Interview. Congratulations on your new documentary film.

Buchar: Thank you Jamie for the opportunity to talk about it.  It took eight years to finish but it’s finally done.

FP: Let us begin with this question: Why should we talk about the fall of communism? Why does it matter?

Buchar: Right, why talk about something that happened some 23 years ago? The word communism is even in our vocabulary anymore and the new generation has no idea what it even means.

And yet, communism eliminated over 100 million people during seventy years of its existence. That’s enough bodies to cover the equator of our planet when placing bodies side by side. When communism ‘collapsed’ in 1989, the media never raised the question of where those responsible for all the atrocities were. We didn’t hear anyone in the media asking where all the communists disappeared to.

Should we really believe that millions of communists just became overnight capitalists and good citizens? Surprise! They turned out to become leaders of the new system. It doesn’t matter what political party in the former Soviet satellite countries you are looking at, left or right, they all were created and are run by former communists.

So communism didn’t really disappear, it didn’t go away. It just adapted, morphed into the new system in order to survive and to continue on its mission.

As a result, the West now has to live with the consequences of its own naiveté.  And we don’t have to go to too far to see what I am talking about. Just look what is going on in America.

FP: So did the Cold War really end? Who won?

Buchar: It depends who you ask. According to some people on the left, the Cold War never existed. They believe it was just our own propaganda. Conservatives believe they won the Cold War and unfortunately they will never accept the perestroika deception for one simple reason—they would have to give up the credit for the victory they proclaimed and acknowledge they were wrong.

There are really very few people in America who believe that the West lost the Cold War. But how will you then explain that after the ‘fall of communism’ that socialism is on the rise around the globe? The international terrorism, seeded and supported by KGB, almost ceased to exist after the disintegration of the Soviet Union but then in 1996 it exploded again in the new form of Islamic terror and the anti-Americanism became peoples’ favored pastime everywhere you look.

While the West declared the victory and the end of Cold War, the struggle with Moscow’s deception machine didn’t end. On the contrary, it intensified. Chekists are still in charge. The West did exactly what KGB strategists anticipated: it lowered its guard, eliminated the counter intelligence, landed Russia millions of dollars and accepted them as equal partners.  It doesn’t hurt to remind you that the CIA Chief for the Soviet block countries at that time was Aldrich Aims and all our spies in Moscow were executed with the exception of one, Oleg Gordievsky. He was the British agent and he talks about it all of this in my film.

Also, keep in mind how the person in charge of supplying millions of dollars to Russia that disappeared in a magic black hole, Marc Rich, was pardoned in the last minute by President Bill Clinton. He is now living who knows where. The CIA and MI6 officials both agree that KGB/FSB spying now is higher than ever.

So it doesn’t matter how we call it—the continuing Cold War, Cold War 2—the Chekists quest for the world domination goes on. And it will go on as long as Chekists will be in charge in Kremlin.

FP: What do the American people know about the current political system and economy in the former Soviet satellites countries?  Why they should know and care?

Buchar: American people know very little or nothing about this. They are busy shopping and entertaining themselves. They have no idea about foreign forces shaping their lives. And if you mention it to them they look at you with disbelief.

When I finished the manuscript of my book And Reality be Damned… I handed it to my colleague in Chicago to get a feedback. His response was: “To accept what’s in your book I would have to give up everything I believed all my life.”

Americans don’t like to hear a bad news and as a result they will get hit hard. There is a saying “You will know what you had only after you lose it.” But in this case it may be too late. There is too much in stake. People can’t put current events in context because they are ignore history and thus can’t learn from it.

Back in 2005, I wanted to interview for my film comrade Rudolf Hegenbart. He was one of the Czech Communist Party Politburo officials, chief of Department 13, in charge of overseeing the transformation, including supervising dissidents. He declined my request because after Vaclav Havel became the President, he was warned by Havel’s people that if he would ever talk he will end up in the bag on the bottom of Slapy dam.

Anyway, after I published my book, he wrote me the letter saying: “Your book is historically important. Your information is correct. We were lectured about all that stuff when I studied in Moscow.” But when you tell Americans that the quest to destroy the capitalist America started in 1922 shortly after the Comintern was established in Moscow they think you should see psychiatrist.

FP: One would think that Marxism/socialism would be discredited by now, after all of the pathetic failure, carnage, genocide and misery they have called. And yet, they are on the rise now. Tell us how and why.

Buchar: Very good question. It is something that has bothered me for a long time. One college student in my film says: “I think that if communism is done right, it could work.”

The idea of communism/socialism always was and still is attractive to purely educated and economically disadvantaged masses. People love nice dreams. There is an old communist propaganda slogan: “Everybody will get what they need.” I remember we were taught at school that under communism, cars will be parked everywhere in streets and if you will need one to drive, you will just pick one.

There is that never-ending propaganda/deception. The goal is not exactly to install socialism, but to disturb and destroy western democracy, specifically in America. The Communist Manifesto still sells very well on Amazon. Nikita Khrushchev said to Vice President Richard Nixon back in 1959:

“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

And here we are getting pretty close to that point. The biggest problem as I see it is that the left has the clear goal, the long term strategy, and it has a well established network around the globe. They are well organized, disciplined and devoted to achieve their goal under any circumstances. Conservatives, on the other hand, have no goal or strategy.

They are more individual-oriented. Blinded by political correctness, they can hardly agree on what their enemy is and because of that they can never come up with a successful counter-strategy.

The only way out of this magic circle is education; to show people what they can’t find in mainstream media and are not told at schools. And we are talking about information that is by no means classified. When you ask anyone today about the Venona intercepts, Solo files, Soviet Comintern and so on, they have no clue, never heard of it. When I started shooting my documentary, there was no interest about this topic at all.

Since I published my book And Reality be Damned… a bunch of very interesting books came out. There is Paul Kengor’s The Communist, Pavel Stroylov’s  Allegations, or yours High Noon for America: The Coming Showdown — just to name a few. When you look at the history, democracy is very young and fragile. It has to be carefully maintained and it can’t successfully function in an uneducated, confused society. Once people start to cast their vote based on a feeling, personal appearance of the candidate, his race or religious beliefs, the whole nation will become just one dysfunctional family—a perfect brewing condition for pushing the idea of socialism or other form of dictatorship on them.

By the way, to install socialism doesn’t require the majority to make it happen. Revolutions are usually started and run by a strongly committed minority and pathetic or manipulated masses just help it happen.

FP: Why do you think Western intelligence and governments can’t grasp the concept of disinformation?

Buchar: Deception is an alien concept for the Western culture.  Joseph Douglass and Bill Gertz talk about this issue in my film. According to them our intelligence establishment had a very primitive, even wrong understanding of what deception represents. Only with the deception of Anatoliy Golitsyn did they get an opportunity to see the whole picture, but they blew it anyway. They refused to accept information he presented to them.

Bill Gertz talks about the anti-anti-communist mindset of the CIA. Pete Bagley told me that only after the Cold War ended did he realize that all CIA operations in Poland were set up by the KGB to get rid of the opposition. The fact that opposition in communist countries was actually ‘controlled opposition’ is hard to swallow to people living in democracy. When I defected from Czechoslovakia in 1980 I was debriefed twice. First in Austria, and then in the US. I was never asked any question I would consider significant. In 2005, one CIA official asked me how did I enjoy the broadcast of Radio Free Europe.

He was surprised when I told him that this broadcast was heavily jammed and it was impossible to listen to.

The CIA simply had no idea what was going on behind the Iron Curtain. They didn’t pay any attention to ideology and propaganda. They were only interested in military related information. So, because of that, they ‘missed the train.’ Finally, the upcoming book ‘Disinformation’ by Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa and Ronald Rychlak will bring this extremely important issue to the public. Let’s hope that in the last minute, Americans will realize they were taken for a ride. The train is picking up the speed and we can only hope that we are not on a runaway train already.

FP: Why is it important for people to watch your new film, The Collapse of Communism: The Untold Story?

Buchar: Many Americans today are not happy with the direction their country is heading in. They are wondering why the progressive movement got so strong, moving the country to become another big EU. The history and the growth of the leftist movement in the United States are well documented—even not so much known—but the spread of socialism in the United States is not just an internal issue. To fully understand what is going on in America today we need to know where the conquest to destroy our way of life was seeded, by whom, and what is their strategy.

For five years I have been interviewing intelligence experts, dissidents, defectors and Cold Warriors. What I discovered was an altogether different reality. The United States is heading for trouble and the key to understand it in all its complexity is to learn what really happened in the period 1989 and 1991. As we near the final destination of a so-called New World Order it is very important to realize who planned this journey. Is it possible that political establishment in the West simply doesn’t want to know the truth?

FP: Robert Buchar, thank you for joining us and thank you for making this film and for your dedication to the truth.

We encourage all of our readers to see this new film and to visit collapseofcommunism.com.

  • Davey

    the above article is a a total lie: communism did NOT kill 100, million people at all, read:

    "Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union"
    Mario Sousa (on the net)

    • Bob the Aussie

      Pathetic, blind, brain dead, moronic, ignorant, dark minded, uread Davey…

    • Bob the Aussie

      I suggest you to have a closer look at the epic work by Stephane Cortois "Black Book Of Communism" where he gives a very detailed report of barbaric and genocidal reign of communo-fascist regimes throughout the entire communist block.

      By the way, Cortois is a former French socialist who has retained his intellectually honest core and was capable of seeing the evil of Marxism.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "the above article is a a total lie: communism did NOT kill 100, million people at all"

      Really? Not "100, million people at all?" What does that mean? How many people were killed in communist purges and as side-effect of policies of starvation and forced labor? What are your stats smartass?

    • tagalog

      No, Communism didn't kill 100 million people; it's more like 120 million people. That extra 20 million people isn't just a rounding error – it's one hell of a lot of people, half of the total for World War II in Europe.

    • zalukas

      Dave, did your parents had any children the lived?

    • Omar

      Wow. Davey, quit being an apologist for the Communist regimes. It is a well known fact that Communism killed more than 100 million people in peace time. Quit supporting totalitarianism.

    • deprogrammer

      You should provide some support here instead of just a search recommendation. Spouting off is good enough for FPM's standards but you should aspire to something better.
      For my part I've disputed the proposed kill counts by all factions here so I can assure you you're pretty much wasting your time. If you really want to stir the pot start talking about the millions killed the Capitalism/Colonialism. The FPMers start frothing at the mouth almost immediately.

      • reader

        "For my part I've disputed the proposed kill counts by all factions here so I can assure you"

        Can you assure me that the moon is imaginary? There's hardly a family in the former Soviet Union without someone at some point having not been arrested, inprisoned or executed by CheKa/GPU/NKVD/KGB.

        • deprogrammer

          Gee that's funny I said I disputed the numbers by ALL sides. Yet all you can say is "Soviet kill people". This has nothing to do with what I was writing about. I never even implied the USSR didn't kill people – and a lot of them – only you came away with that.
          You then completely ignored the point that the Capitalist/Colonialist project tens of millions. That didn't surprise as good FPMers like yourself used a similar ploy in the past.
          You're going to have to accept that when power is placed into the hands of a few eventually they have to start killing people if they want to hold onto it.

          • reader

            Gee, you're just engaged in cheap demagoguery. Capitalist/colonialist my ass. Your environmentalist friends forcing fraudilent DDT ban killed more african babies than all of the colonialists combined in the history of men.

          • deprogrammer

            Really? Do you want to look up the famines in India? the wars on conquest in Africa? As for the DDT ban you do realise that had negative effects on human health right? How about its declining effectiveness against mosquitoes (I'm forced to guess that's what you were "thinking" since you provided no details)? Nah, why interrupt a good FPM style hissy fit with an actual effort to find you what is actually going on.

          • reader

            DDT causes declining effectiveness on your frame of mind. But, so does, oxigen, neuttrogen and all other elements from the Mendeleyev chart.

          • deprogrammer

            Check you spelling punk. Now for your next trick try to actually answer a question instead of spewing hate.

    • Pylons

      Think about what Stalin did to the Ukrainian people in a very short time. He killed 1.5 million people by starving them to death while he sold the wheat that should have fed them overseas.

      That was just in the blink of an eye.

      100 million may be high as I believe it was more like 60 to 70 million. Delta of +|- 5 million. Scary right that you can just type millions as if that is nothing.

      What's the quote… "1 death is a tragedy while 1 million is a statistic."

      • Maxie

        What's more startling is the matter-of-fact, all-in-a -days-work that the Stalinists went abut their genocidal ways. Sadistic nonchalance. Read "Stalin" by Montefiore to get the sordid picture.

    • marsconi

      Read "The Black Book of Communism" by a group of French scholars. It lists the extensive bloody history of Communism in the 29th century.

    • Mark D. Isaacs

      “Mao Tse-Tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world’s population, was responsible for well over 70 million death in peacetime, more than any other twentieth-century leader.” –Jung Chang, “Mao: The Unknown Story” (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), p.3.

      Like the National Socialist genocide, WE MUST NEVER FORGET the 120-430 million victims of the family of socialism: International Socialism [Marxist-Leninist-Maoism] to National Socialism and Fascism.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    FP: So did the Cold War really end? Who won?

    Buchar: It depends who you ask. According to some people on the left, the Cold War never existed. They believe it was just our own propaganda.

    Me: This fact (the fact that we have massive denial) is the biggest problem we face, and why Obama was able to slither in to office. If we had educated our students on the facts, Obama would never have been elected to any political office anywhere in the nation.

    • deprogrammer

      Well, that's creating your own straw man. What leftists said the cold war never existed? Links to legit sources only please. How could someone be a critic of US foreign policy – which, based your other posts – probably proves they are left without acknowledging the driving force behind US foreign policy post -World War II.

      • Larry

        Plenty of leftists were busy telling us that the USSR was a nice, cuddly furry teddy bear that only wanted to be liked. They talked all around it, never mentioning the USSR's fomentation of communism everywhere it could, the undermining of democracy everywhere it could, and the constant on going insinuation of communists into Western institutions of education and politics.

        • deprogrammer

          Now, try and actually address the question I brought up. The question called on the poster to provide actual evidence that leftists – his broad term implies it was common – denied the existence of the cold war. You never even attempted that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Now, try and actually address the question I brought up. The question called on the poster to provide actual evidence that leftists – his broad term implies it was common – denied the existence of the cold war. You never even attempted that. "

            It is common. Common means you can find it easily. Prove to me that you breathe air. I need URLs. Perhaps you're writing this from your aqua-iPad, breathing through gills. I need evidence you're human.

          • Robert Buchar

            I didn't say that leftist deny this, but that is what some young college students think today!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I didn't say that leftist deny this, but that is what some young college students think today! "

            Probably the majority think this. If not, they become conservatives when they realize the lies they've been told. It is a liberal thing. It's the basis of becoming liberal, hearing about all the alleged victims of colonialism, etc.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Well, that's creating your own straw man. What leftists said the cold war never existed?"

        Most of them that I meet and speak to.

        "Links to legit sources only please."

        Newflash: Not everyone's brain has a direct Internet connection yet. Some people have relationships that are not published on the web. In addition, few people will deny outright "there was no cold war" but will simply comment that it was the result of American "colonialism." See Noam Chomsky any time he talks about the cold war anywhere.

        Give me a break. You never heard of Chomsky or Howard Zinn? They're only the most influential "liberal thought leaders" of the modern era in America.

        "How could someone be a critic of US foreign policy – which, based your other posts – probably proves they are left without acknowledging the driving force behind US foreign policy post -World War II."

        Your reading comprehension is poor. The claim is that leftist liberals blame the cold war on the West and describe it as something that the facts prove it wasn't: Western fabrications and aggression against the victimized Communists. It wasn't a cold war as they describe it but capitalist aggression against peace-loving socialists. This is precisely how the Soviet propaganda described it. Perhaps you simply agree with the idiots in spite of all the documentation that has been published to the contrary.

        Few people try to cover up events in history that make such an impact as if "nothing happened, they revise the narratives to construct something else to replace the facts of the true narratives. Holocaust deniers don't deny "something happened" and we refer to it as the holocaust, but they revise it to become something completely different. That is the most common form of denial.

  • Robin

    The author is correct about what happened and how it morphed. No one was more surprised than me to discover that was a big part of what was going on in education. It was the basis for Transformational Outcomes Based education pushed in the 90s all over the world at the same time. It is the basis for the systems thinking and Competence and social and emotional learning focus of Obama's educational reforms. I wrote a post yesterday called " Why Make the Long Sought Goal of Anarchists and Socialists the 21st Century Education Ideal?" after finding the exact language of what was being pushed in a Bioregionalism book explaining how important education was to taking down the "murderous sociopathology of capitalism." When you track the actual definitions of College and Career Ready back to the obligations involved you find all the tenets of communitarianism being forced on the students who must exemplify the desired traits daily.

    The educators knew in 1985 they were going to use education and the UN and their monopoly over accreditation to go after Western consciousness through the K-12 schools and colleges and universities.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It was the basis for Transformational Outcomes Based education"

      Bingo.

      What they want to transform are the facts of history. It starts as stealth class warfare and ends up with completely fabricated revisionism to justify communism (or Islam for that matter, but Islamic supremacists want something other than communism as their end goal).

  • Greg Byrne

    It doesn't surprise me that some people would react this way. We have plenty of nitwits like them in Oz. That is why Julia Gillard got into office. That is why Oz is in a mess economically. That is why most of our defence hardware is 20 years out of date.

  • Schlomotion

    This has to be the award recipient for silliest thing said at Frontpage all day:

    FP: Why do you think Western intelligence and governments can’t grasp the concept of disinformation?

    Buchar: Deception is an alien concept for the Western culture.

    • deprogrammer

      That is comedy gold. It would be impossible to list all the contradictions to that blanket statement so we'll just have to laugh at him and go on with our day.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        It may have been hyperbolic, but that is no reason to dismiss his point completely unless there was no way for you to care in the first place. In that case, it hardly matters that you missed the point.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      FP: Why do you think Western intelligence and governments can’t grasp the concept of disinformation?

      Buchar: Deception is an alien concept for the Western culture.

      I see your point, but the writer could have accurately said that the Soviet deception schemes were so much more sophisticated that in contrast, the plans of (limited term) Western leaders left them unable to comprehend the seriousness of the threats of Soviet deception schemes.

      Obviously deception exists in any culture and society. There are distinctions that can be made, and absolute statements lead to loss of credibility to those who need the information most.

      • deprogrammer

        The only way Buchar's statement could have any validity is if you impose a much longer explanation of your own. That assumes something Buchar's statement doesn't even hint at. His statement was very clear and so off base as to adversely effect his credibility.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "The only way Buchar's statement could have any validity is if you impose a much longer explanation of your own."

          That's literally true, but some times people use hyperbole with the assumption that the reader is not totally ignorant…as in coming from another planet. The very fact that the English language is used was probably justification for assuming that nobody really believes that "Western intelligence and governments can’t grasp the concept of disinformation" as an absolute statement. But to avoid critics like you, the language could have been more careful and measured. It just depends on the goals of the author and assumptions made about the reader or audience. The statement has plenty of validity. It just isn't literally true in absolute terms. Your expectations might be just a little high.

          I guess you could be right, since I don't read minds. I think my explanation makes more sense than yours, but I concede it's subjective. As an editor, I would have counseled change. I'm not an editor by profession though. Are you?

          • deprogrammer

            "That's literally true…" Full stop we are done. Since all we have is the transcript it would be foolish to add more to it simply to make it conform to our beliefs and wants. Do people use hyperbole? Yes, is their a hint of that or qualifications offered in the statement? Only if the reader assumes their is or, to put it another way, no.
            "The very fact that the English language is used was probably justification for assuming that nobody really believes that…" Talk about overreach. The use of any particular language proves NOTHING.
            " But to avoid critics like you…" I can see that. After all good FPMers will simply swallow whatever they are told. Your attempt to twist this into an attack against me just failed.
            "It just depends on the goals of the author and assumptions made about the reader or audience…" You ain't kidding. He was speaking to a docile and weak audience accustomed to blind belief. Such an audience often leads to sloppy reasoning. Also what kind of assumptions do you think he has about his audience then?
            "The statement has plenty of validity." How can this be if you admit my observations are correct?
            "It just isn't literally true in absolute terms. Your expectations might be just a little high." You ain't kidding. Having much of any expectations for intellectual standards on FPM seems to be asking a lot.
            "I guess you could be right, since I don't read minds." That is my point. Though you are projecting all kind of assumptions onto the statement that clearly aren't there.
            "I think my explanation makes more sense than yours, but I concede it's subjective." If you are conceding what I wrote was literally true (is their really any other kind?) then why do you think your explanation makes more sense? Is it because it conforms to what you wish? Hope and mere belief do not constitute proof.
            "As an editor, I would have counseled change. I'm not an editor by profession though. Are you?" I don't need to be an editor, interviewer or anything else to call out someone for making such an obviously false statement. The question is why are you so willing to bow in subservience to anyone who has a job title like that? If I were an editor would you suddenly change your mind and obey me? Clearly I would have made a better editor or interviewer than the one assigned to this article since I didn't let something like that pass without comment.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >"That's literally true…" Full stop we are done.

            Literally true without context. I'm not demanding anything of you, nor do I need you to speak for me. When you're done, you're done. You don't need to announce it unless you get a thrill somehow.

            "Since all we have is the transcript it would be foolish to add more to it simply to make it conform to our beliefs and wants."

            You pretend you had no context to evaluate. You're being a real idiot. Is that intentional?

            "Do people use hyperbole? Yes, is their a hint of that or qualifications offered in the statement? Only if the reader assumes their is or, to put it another way, no."

            Hyperbole is not a simple element one ads, there are degrees. Hyperbole and exaggeration are common to at least some degree in all non-scientific writing.

            All analysis requires assumptions. There is no published work ever that does not require assumptions.

            >"The very fact that the English language is used was probably justification for assuming that nobody really believes that…" Talk about overreach. The use of any particular language proves NOTHING.

            In this case you are wrong. The language indicates quite a bit about culture. Cultures associated with the English language are known for having strong values of discussing things as they are, and not denying complexities when they are known or understood. Most people know who Machiavelli was, or at the very least are familiar with the term "Machiavellian." The English language has plenty of vocabulary describing deception, lies and so forth. In context, the discussion was about deception used for political motives. Anyone who learned to speak English well enough to read the article knows that Anglo (English speaking) cultures do not deny the common existence of deception as a flaw in each human. In many cultures, it would be taboo to state or acknowledge this. But I see I'm talking over your head. Others may gain from reading my arguments though, so I'm not done yet.

            >" But to avoid critics like you…" I can see that. After all good FPMers will simply swallow whatever they are told. Your attempt to twist this into an attack against me just failed.

            Let me make this even simpler for you to understand. I mentioned writing objectives. Is the article targeting a hostile crowd? If so, then being more defensive in writing style could have killed your fun. If the writer is targeting the average person who is not looking to pick a fight, the message is more than clear. I had no problem understanding what was written. The real question anyone reading this has to ask is, why was it so difficult for you to understand? Why do you blame the writer for your poor comprehension?

            When I set out to understand something, I don't immediately blame others if I miss something. Maybe my knowledge is lacking. If I am confident in my position based on superior knowledge, that is different. How is it that you claim superior knowledge here? What makes you think that the average reader has as much trouble inferring context as you have? Maybe it's you. Look in the mirror and think about that before you defend your difficulties by claiming it's the fault of others.

            I was being generous by allowing that you had a point in theory. In reality, you're just being ridiculous. Did you really not understand this? You actually understood the claim was that the subject literally had no knowledge of deception or disinformation (whatever language is used)? What's wrong with you? You might need to return to high school or take a college class or several on literature and communications. Seriously, I'm just trying to help.

            "It just depends on the goals of the author and assumptions made about the reader or audience…" You ain't kidding. He was speaking to a docile and weak audience accustomed to blind belief."

            That is your biased, subjective view. It was easy for me to infer that immediately from your original silly claim. I'm just trying to help you to wake up and see that maybe you own more of the problem than you see.

            "Such an audience often leads to sloppy reasoning."

            Your writing is much more obtuse here. An audience leads to sloppy reasoning where, on the part of the writer? So now it's the fault of the audience for understanding context? *Your* reasoning is so poor, and yet you blame others for understanding context. It's apparently way over your head but you think you're the smartest guy in the room. You must love the president.

          • deprogrammer

            How very long winded of you. I can see why you would yammer on for so long since you have so little to work with. For those new to this mess here is the original post:
            "FP: Why do you think Western intelligence and governments can’t grasp the concept of disinformation?

            Buchar: Deception is an alien concept for the Western culture. "
            This is a very straight forward, and clear statement, the problem is it makes Buchar look rather foolish. Instead of simply admitting that objectivefactsmatter has been trying to weasel out of it on Buchar's behalf. The exact motivation is unknown since OFM hasn't been forthcoming on that point but Buchar wrote something that good FPMers would lap up with enthusiasm as it reinforces what FPMers would like to believe – this is often what constitutes "proof" amongst good FPMers.
            I'll have to address his "thoughts" at another time since I have far more important things to do right now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Buchar: Deception is an alien concept for the Western culture. "
            This is a very straight forward, and clear statement, the problem is…"

            The problem is that you now have quoted it with no context. The statement is absolute in the absence of context. Why did you feel the need to take it out of context? This is not an academic discussion about a single sentence but about your claim that we need to ignore the context in which it was published, the way you found it. Why do you think context is irrelevant?

            Go back to school or get stop trying to cite people for trivial errors or judgment calls that you don't understand because of your own problems, whatever those problems might be. I don't know what your problems are because I have so little to work with in this dialog.

          • deprogrammer

            You've totally lost focus at this point. Sad very sad.
            "The statement is absolute in the absence of context. Why did you feel the need to take it out of context? This is not an academic discussion about a single sentence but about your claim that we need to ignore the context in which it was published, the way you found it. Why do you think context is irrelevant?"

            To start from the beginning I wasn't the one who posted the original comment on this thread. You need to start breathing again and do something about the foam coming out of your mouth. All I have done is simply take Buchar at what he said. He made an overly simplistic statement and got caught. That is what will happen when someone puts out such an outrageously false statement. You screw up you take your lumps and move on. Simple as that.
            As for the rest of your post they are just the typical string of FPMer insults and deserve no comment.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "All I have done is simply take Buchar at what he said."

            Ignoring context. You've conceded nothing even though I was generous in conceding your point was subjective, therefore not false. You tried to use this opinion of yours to attack "FPers."

            You're a loser. That's my subjective opinion after this conversation.

          • deprogrammer

            FPMers. You could have copy and pasted it.
            You've lost that is why you have fled into personal insults instead of believing your master blindly.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Reading comprehension. Work on it, and you may transcend your current status as "loser."

          • deprogrammer

            At this point you've clearly lost. You're just to sloppy and unwilling to concede even the simplest observations of fact.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >"The statement has plenty of validity." How can this be if you admit my observations are correct? "

            I didn't say you were correct, I said I understood your point but that it is not a valid criticism in context. If you're going to be too simple, we won't get anywhere further than this. You really do have trouble with context. I'm not trying to insult you, but knowing this about yourself will help you get structured assistance. You may read others making similar objections, and some of them are simply being sarcastic. If you really don't understand, you probably can get help with reading comprehension. If you just want to go around correcting people and expecting literal perfection from each sentence, then your life will be much less rewarding than it could be.

            >"It just isn't literally true in absolute terms. Your expectations might be just a little high." You ain't kidding. Having much of any expectations for intellectual standards on FPM seems to be asking a lot.

            No, your expectations are too high the way that a growing baby might wrongly expect his parents to spoonfeed him long past the time to learn to serve himself. Again, you make the wrong assumptions. Somehow I doubt many will worry about your judgments about intellectual standards. As I said before, if you are struggling, it just might be your problem.

            >"I guess you could be right, since I don't read minds." That is my point. Though you are projecting all kind of assumptions onto the statement that clearly aren't there.

            Clearly are not there in your mind. It might be you.
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply
            Definition of IMPLY
            1 obsolete : enfold, entwine
            2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
            3 : to contain potentially
            4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>

            You think I invented this concept, but people imply things from reading. Writing requires judgment. There is no perfect work ever written. That means you can attack it over style, content, whatever you want. Your attack does not make you "correct" just because you have a basis. In this case, it's subjective. That is why I don't say you are wrong. You're just unusually dense.

    • Robert Buchar

      Your statement makes me wonder if you can define what deception means. Do your homework, maybe watch the film, and then we can discuss the issue. But people always believe what they what to believe.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        He was taking liberties with hyper-literal renderings of the language used. In the context of your conversation it made perfect sense. He's just looking for ways to poke sticks at people.

        It's obvious the context was "Intelligence deception," and that "no concept" meant that Westerners were grossly outclassed, not that they had literally "never heard" of the concept of deception.

        • Schlomotion

          In that more specific rendering, it still doesn't hold up. The United States was grossly outclassed by the USSR in matters of intelligence deception. Really? Did they win?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The United States was grossly outclassed by the USSR in matters of intelligence deception. Really? Did they win?"

            They've been winning almost since Lenin's days till now. There is no question about that. It's understandable since the West has a free press to manipulate and laws to protect traitors more effectively than we can counter such moves.

            I think the only possible way we could have matched them was to put Hoover in charge of education back when he founded the FBI communist hunts. Only with broad awareness could we have possibly countered the resources and will put in to their efforts to deceive us.

            We still pay the price every day at the gas pumps, as we must tolerate deceived students, traitors, etc. It even paved the way for Islamic supremacists to infiltrate, using the same (now) proven methods.

            Even without those examples, just reviewing the documented incidents of spies and traitors, it's very easy to make the case that the Soviets mastered espionage while we simply were smarter in growing our economy and technology base. We're smarter and more ethical to the world at large, and they are more determined to kill or enslave us.

            Having said that, I don't think the communist end game is still the same for them. They don't have Marxist doctrine as their total ideology, but more a vague sense that they deserve mastery of the world more than the West, or simply that they want it as much but are mitigated by fewer scruples, or maybe even lacking a constitution and our traditions, the elites have no sense of those values.

          • Schlomotion

            Your comment is hard to answer for several reasons. The first glaring thing you said was that the USSR is beating us today. The USSR collapsed in 1991. The second glaring thing you said was that we could have beaten the USSR, (even though we did beat the USSR), if we put Hoover in charge of education. This is the same Hoover who slept on the Mafia, denied its existence and had the FBI look the other way while it grew out of control. This is the same Hoover who thought that black people (13% of the population) were dangerous subversives just because of their skin tone, and recorded Martin Luther King having s.ex. This is the same Hoover that was worried that Jack Valenti, movie fascist, might have been gay, even though he himself was.

            There are remarkable similarities between the tone taken in articles at this website, and by the demeanor of attorney Roy Cohn. Pushing Hoover as an ideal head of the Department of Education brings this out even more. It's like I am reading a version of The Man in the High Castle, where the USSR won the Cold War and the only hope was to go back in a time machine and kill Rexford Tugwell and replace him with Mark Felt. It's political science fiction.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The first glaring thing you said was that the USSR is beating us today. The USSR collapsed in 1991."

            I assumed that you read the article under discussion. The premise is that the same elites are running Russia. Putin is from the KGB. They have morphed in to something new, I acknowledged that. How much has changed, it is not clear. Russia is now the successor of the USSR. OK?

            The second glaring thing you said was that we could have beaten the USSR, (even though we did beat the USSR)

            We are discussing the intelligence deception war, not the cold war in terms of overt hegemony. Clearly the USA won in that sense. If anyone had asked about that, I would never deny such a thing. In the context of the discussion (intelligence deception) the Russians, who inherited the role of the "Soviet Union" are still winning.

            What do we get for this win? We get hegemony, but a divided population, that is easy to manipulate. This manipulation (through deception) leads us to make mistakes that favor our enemies. Guess who they might be?

            If you look at the overall investments and returns on those investments, the Russians gain quite a bit for their investments while we pay out to keep our "soft power" as the main diplomatic tool. The Russians care very little about soft power and that alone allows them to win quite a lot through deception because they don't have to pay much for their gains. The USA pays for them.

            "you said was that we could have beaten the USSR, (even though we did beat the USSR), if we put Hoover in charge of education"

            It's the only plausible way I can think of. It doesn't have to be him personally, but someone with his awareness and drive to warn those who needed to know, and didn't.

            "This is the same Hoover who slept on the Mafia, denied its existence and had the FBI look the other way while it grew out of control. This is the same Hoover who thought that black people (13% of the population) were dangerous subversives just because of their skin tone, and recorded Martin Luther King having s.ex. This is the same Hoover that was worried that Jack Valenti, movie fascist, might have been gay"

            How does that make him wrong about communism? Obviously the guy had too much on his plate and too much power. I didn't say "if we added to his mission." Had he been in charge of communist threats alone, excluding all other duties, and if the FBI had implemented more checks and balances, or any number of possibilities that are merely theoretical. You're drifting from the point. The point is that the USA was blindsided and few people seem to be really trying to sound the alarm about communism. He is the most prominent character that I know of who got it right very early.

            "Pushing Hoover as an ideal head of the Department of Education brings this out even more. It's like I am reading a version of The Man in the High Castle, where the USSR won the Cold War and the only hope was to go back in a time machine and kill Rexford Tugwell and replace him with Mark Felt. It's political science fiction. "

            It was just a trivial comment to make a point for those that can understand. Otherwise, don't sweat it. There are no such devices as time machines and Hoover died decades ago.

            If you want to look for specific evidence or examples of Soviet deception, start with this:

            "The Sword And The Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive And The Secret History Of The Kgb" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465003109/ref=o

            And you might read "Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century"
            http://www.amazon.com/Dupes-Americas-Adversaries-

          • Schlomotion

            I didn't read the second one yet, but I do own a copy of and have read the Mitrokhin Archive. I have also read The Broken Sword of the Empire by Maxim Kalashnikov, and listened to a few lectures and read some essays by Dmitri Orlov. The fact that the average citizen can get hold of these types of literature and read them, sideways through a translation software if necessary, speaks volumes to me about how the forces of free information, free thought, and free speech are generally winning out over the cause of totalitarianism.

            I am not worried about Muslims and college students. I was a college student and didn't meet too many scary ones. As an American citizen, I have probably only met about ten Muslims in my life, despite traveling to many states. I think there is definitely a threat or a danger, or a red flag going up over the following:

            -The GRU taking the place of the KGB.
            -Russian assassinations and attempts on people like Alexander Litvinenko and Viktor Yushchenko.
            -Russia turning off the runway lights and killing the whole top government of Poland who foolishly all took the same plane to Russia.
            -Russia laying claim to the North Pole and revamping their occupation of Sakhalin.
            -Jong Un, Chavez, Lukashenko and company putting on their best wide brimmed green hats and uniforms at a moment's notice, as if it's 1985 all over again.
            -Chavez, and for that matter Obama allowing Russia to violate the Monroe Doctrine by parking nukes and nuclear subs off the coast of Venezuela.
            -George W. Bush allowing China to fire a nuclear missile off the coast of California without repercussion.
            -Russia Today feeding and hijacking the American populist movement with nonsense churned out by Putin.
            -That the US accepts Kaspersky Labs as a legitimate source of antivirus systems.
            -US reticence to go full forward with anti-ballistic technology in Eastern Europe.
            -The US adopting a soft hand about Taiwan, and backing down against Chinese aircraft carrier presence in the South China Sea, slowly giving up the gains of WWII.

            But most importantly, the US is adopting Stasi-like tactics toward American citizens, embracing total surveillance, eliminating posse comitatus, habeas corpus, and miranda. We are moving toward Chinese style internet control wherever possible, and intelligence services and corporatist gangsters run our politics. These things undermine the United States more than anything. We even destroyed our own stock market and banking system, willingly. A guy like Putin, wrong as he is might occasionally do the right thing, like storm up into Yukos with machine guns and throw Mikhail Khodorkofsky in prison. We don't even have the sense to do that in the US. Those are all bigger problems than college students.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The fact that the average citizen can get hold of these types of literature and read them, sideways through a translation software if necessary, speaks volumes to me about how the forces of free information, free thought, and free speech are generally winning out over the cause of totalitarianism. "

            Indeed that is true, but only in the long run. That doesn't mean new totalitarian schemes are not bubbling up though. If anything, it verifies the capacity of man to commit evil. Are we winning in the sense of eventually exposing it all? Yes. Is the fight over? No.

            "I am not worried about Muslims and college students. I was a college student and didn't meet too many scary ones."

            I can appreciate what that says about you as a person, but the irony here is that you've just indicated how in the West we have our ideas about deception that limit our ability to understand the lengths non-Westerners will go to to achieve their totalitarian ideals. Their mission is not to scare you. And most of them are acting human in most of their time here. However, that does not mean you were not deceived by people who will successfully work to undermine the US Constitution and the best interests of our nation.

            "I think there is definitely a threat or a danger, or a red flag going up over the following: …"

            When people take the time to patiently explain their position you will find there there is a middle ground where objective facts matter.

            "But most importantly, the US is adopting Stasi-like tactics toward American citizens, embracing total surveillance, eliminating posse comitatus, habeas corpus, and miranda. We are moving toward Chinese style internet control wherever possible, and intelligence services and corporatist gangsters run our politics."

            Only if these attempts were unmitigated by the courts. The individual still reigns supreme in the USA because the court systems are intact.

            "These things undermine the United States more than anything."

            Potentially yes, in fact, no.

            "We even destroyed our own stock market and banking system, willingly."

            I can't discern what you attribute this to or what specifically you are referring to. The sub-prime loans and derivatives should have been regulated more closely and wisely, but both parties had motives for ignoring this. In theory it helped both rich and poor, until it collapsed and then the blame game started.

            It could have worked if not for Islam's indirect attacks on our economy. Or, the bubble could have simply got even bigger and blew up later. We can't know which…but I rarely here anyone critique these complex issues with comprehensive understanding. They usually look for a villain to blame. The US politicians gambled and lost, but we will recover. Socialism is not the answer though.

            "A guy like Putin, wrong as he is might occasionally do the right thing, like storm up into Yukos with machine guns and throw Mikhail Khodorkofsky in prison."

            He understands that Islam wants to take over the world and defends his nation accordingly. He uses the same tactics whenever it suits him politically though.

            "Those are all bigger problems than college students."

            Each problem as an ideal response. In most cases, the earlier we expose Islam, the less chance we have that more will be required. College students are generally harmless if they realize that they can't deceive us when called upon to do so. However, we've allowed so much infiltration that we don't really know what today's college students have in mind when they belong to Muslim political organizations. Each threat has an ideal response. Don't judge your opponents until you know the whole set of ideas and plans. You might end up agreeing with them (at least in part) if you hear enough.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The United States was grossly outclassed by the USSR in matters of intelligence deception. Really? Did they win?"

            They would not even have been in the game (super power) without decades of deception between the world wars. Just the deception in the Roosevelt era caused us to give them too much support during the war, too much leeway immediately after the war, too much trust with technology, lax security at the Manhattan Project, the stories go on and on.

            If they didn't win the deception war, they wouldn't even be in the game. It was their great equalizer. Imagine a cowboy without a gun and that is the Soviet Union without their dominant deception schemes.

            Come on now, study a little history. What resources did the Soviets have? You think communism leads to great productivity? Are you kidding? Without stolen technology and aid packaged\s won with deception, they would have been overrun by Hitler or perhaps even destroyed before WWII got started.

            The Soviet Union was born of deception from top to bottom. It's still unprecedented as far as I know. They are actually bigger liars than Islamic supremacists because they don't stupidly underestimate their enemy.

          • Schlomotion

            I don't think winning the deception war is what kept them in the game. What kept them in the game was that in part, the dismantlement of the USSR was done voluntarily and planned out by Reagan and Gorbachev in an office in a high altitude airplane. They were kept in the game because the US oversaw the handing over of political power to Russian Mafias and Israeli natural resource gangsters. They were kept in the game also by being allowed to do joint anti-citizen military wargaming in the United States in Denver last May. They were kept in the game by Putin being allowed to hang out at the "Western White House" with the Bushes. They are kept in the game by being accepted members of Bilderberg. They are kept in the game because the CIA took over the Presidency and the KGB took over the Russian Presidency and both countries designated their own populations as the biggest threat to security and started cooperating with one another instead. The fact that our own government formed another whole separate shadow government with even a completely different capital city and uses that position to bleed money out of the United States into itself to buy endless repressive technology has kept Russia in the game too, because they are running the same swindle, and these guys all meet up to trade tricks.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I don't think winning the deception war is what kept them in the game. What kept them in the game was that in part, the dismantlement of the USSR was done voluntarily and planned out by Reagan and Gorbachev in an office in a high altitude airplane."

            You misunderstood. I meant that deception was fundamental to their tactics since the revolution, and remains so today in Russia. It's now part of their cultural DNA, but we have a better understanding now than before.

          • Schlomotion

            Cultural DNA arguments are interesting rhetorically. They always have to be weighed against actions because they are behavior-inferential, not behavior analytical. A lot of people on this website, for example, make a cultural DNA argument against Obama because he is black and has Muslims in his family. D'Souza, Pipes, and Joel Gilbert do this. In contrast, I found a different cultural DNA argument about the same by Zekeh S. Gbotokuma.
            http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/culturaldiplomac

            One of these should be written for Putin as well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Cultural DNA arguments are interesting rhetorically"

            They must be discussed with caution.

            "They always have to be weighed against actions because they are behavior-inferential, not behavior analytical."

            Exactly. They are still useful to begin an investigation or to add value to other data.

            "A lot of people on this website, for example, make a cultural DNA argument against Obama because he is black and has Muslims in his family."

            But only to support other evidence. You can't use this argument totally isolated from objective facts about behavior.

            "In contrast, I found a different cultural DNA argument about the same by Zekeh S. Gbotokuma."

            None of these theories are entirely comprehensive or mutually exclusive. There can be subjective evidence based on true facts in each of them without contradicting the others.

            My contentions with Obama are based mostly on the results of his actions. I don't have any problem with diversity per se. In fact you'd probably be shocked to know what I've done most of my life because I worked with cultures from all over the world, promoting "diversity" in education and culture, but not as it is some times defined today where the receiving culture must bend its rules in order to compromise with conflicting cultures. As a choice, one can choose to try new foods, and so forth but to have separate laws for immigrants, and separate standards of behavior and justice…my work in this field allowed me to see instantly when the lines were clearly crossed.

            It's almost the antithesis of what my family worked for for generations. Peaceful integration and celebration of true common values as opposed to submission to whiny lying self-declared class victims.

            "One of these should be written for Putin as well."

            That would not be easy. On the other hand, his culture was far more homogenous, so maybe it wouldn't be hard after all. Remember, it's only the frame for pursuing motives and ideology, but not worth much without direct evidence to support whatever theory is being presented.

            Cultural DNA analysis (under whatever label you want to use) is more useful in analyzing people collectively. Individuals are just too…individual to make use of such analysis most of the time. And it's then really almost impossible to show cause on top of correlation for individuals. It's not that easy even for groups. You can only be confident when your theory leads to a way to test it.

      • Schlomotion

        I know what deception means. I even went to Tamar Frankel's lecture tonight on Ponzi schemes.

    • UCSPanther

      Let's see: You drink kool-aid from Ron Paul, you praised George Soros, you praised the Crown Heights riots and got all upset when I said that anyone having their property attacked during riots should have the right to fire back on the mobs, repeated Castro propaganda, claimed the Japanese in WWII were innocent victims and had the right to commit their atrocities, repeatedly shoot your mouth off over Israel, praised Yasser Arafat, praised Occupy Wall street and even talked about cannibalizing Bill O'reilly.

      You ain't no Libertarian. You are an anti-american leftist and a rather stupid one at that.

      • Schlomotion

        Just about nothing you said there was true. Maybe, maybe I said something about eating Bill O'Reilly. That's possible.

  • Western Spirit

    St. Paul said our battle is not with flesh and blood but with principalities and Demonic forces that are in control of this world.

    And indeed we go from one enemy of freedom to another, freedom that is our God given right, and these powers of the world, are the enemies of freedom that we constantly have to fight for our God given freedom.

    So whether we have won or communism won, with its baby brother socialism, is really pointless. Already the next challenger to our freedom is on the horizon. And the country is in denial about that challenger, Islam's aims, because at least half of this once free country has succumbed to these destructive power's dilutions in their everyday lives and in giving up God have given up His freedom, as well.

  • Pylons

    The USSR needed a way to value their GDP, hence, let the west think they won victory and the KGB can mask a coup of the satellite states. Wow, plausible? I did some research on this looking at the years 89 and 90 and I think there is a happy medium between the author and a few of the posters here.

    The KGB had a ripe opportunity to frame that the west won a victory, and they did, however the only thing that really changed was that the KGB went "public" and took over!

    Not only did they take over the old satellite's, now they could better manage their currency and GDP. Look at Georgia and the Ukraine… Has much changed? Still socialist to me and will be until Democracy becomes an organic movement.

    • Maxie

      We seem to be moving in the wrong direction. The KGB seems to be operating out of the White House.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "We seem to be moving in the wrong direction. The KGB seems to be operating out of the White House. "

        True, but we can fix that issue soon.

  • Ghostwriter

    Well,I think on the whole we won,but it seems that the bad guys went underground,reinvented themselves and tried again. Unfortunately,we have dimwits like Schlomotion and deprogrammer who don't want to admit to themselves that communism was as evil and as depraved as many in America thought it was. In this country,we have a lot of people who escaped from communism's cold,unforgiving grasp and the stories they tell are harrowing. Sadly,those like Schlomotion and deprogrammer will think they're a bunch of liars who shouldn't be believed,even though they're from places like China,Cuba,North Korea,and other places like that.
    They have no sympathy for the victims of communism. They only have sympathy for their tormentors.

    • deprogrammer

      Exactly where, no your imagination doesn't count, did I say I had anything but sympathy for those ground under by the authoritarian regimes? The big difference between you – a good FPMer – and me is I don't dump people into categories of "worthy" and "unworthy" victims. Here on FPM I see nothing but contempt for those maimed or killed by the US or it's allies and I'M denounced for bringing up such inconvenient facts. Stalin did things that would sicken anyone with even an ounce of humanity but so did regimes backed by the US. Their victims are just as worthy of our sympathy but, again, not according to the good FPMer.

    • deprogrammer

      Your complete inability to respond is very telling.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Well,I think on the whole we won,but it seems that the bad guys went underground,reinvented themselves and tried again. Unfortunately,we have dimwits like Schlomotion and deprogrammer who don't want to admit to themselves that communism was as evil and as depraved as many in America thought it was."

    I think they just want to pick apart the language used to attack the speaker rather than the salient points made. They don't really know what they think. They would probably deny that you could state anything with certainty.

    "In this country,we have a lot of people who escaped from communism's cold,unforgiving grasp and the stories they tell are harrowing."

    And many of them have documented it clearly enough that you have to be blind to deny it, or look away completely and deny these people exist at all.

    "They have no sympathy for the victims of communism."

    Victims in reality are individuals. Victims in the minds of many people today are derived from class status as determined by popular consensus, which is driven by among other factors, pressure for political correctness.

    "They only have sympathy for their tormentors."

    I'm not sure I agree. I think they believe all leaders follow the values of their cultures, and there is no good or evil, just various flavors, none better or worse. Any attempt to draw distinctions between good and evil will be attacked as homer-ism. All objective truths are thought to be corrupted by subjectivity to some degree or another, and that gives them wiggle-room to argue endlessly that any objective statement is thus "wrong" to some degree or another.

    The answer some times is to write more extensively and concede to the existence of subjectivity, but then focus on the clear, well-defined distinctions.

    You can't always do that in a discussion forum though. Just saying.

    • Schlomotion

      I find it ironic that one just can't deny enough the belief in Communism in this milieu of former Communists turned Likudniks. I never ran around any drinking parties throwing around words like "praxis" and "bourgeoisie." A lot of people here did. For someone who has never been a Communist to have to sink in the water to prove he is not a Communist to a bunch of witch-hunters general who followed Max Shachtman and Bob Avakian is really, side-splittingly funny.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I find it ironic that one just can't deny enough the belief in Communism in this milieu of former Communists turned Likudniks."

        Most people who believe in communism or its ideas have no clue where these ideas came from. That is why reading "Dupes" is so helpful in understanding the discourse. Soviet Communism has more adherents today in the USA than in Russia. They just don't know the original source of these ideals.

        It's like when Obama denies being Muslim. He doesn't understand the accusations. The accusation isn't that he sneaks off to Mosques without telling anyone. The accusations are that he was raised as a Muslim, and remains one according to Islam, and that his actions are pro-Muslim to the detriment of all others. He can continue to deny it all he wants, but his denials have not addressed the actual accusations.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ken.watson.94 Ken Watson

    It's Aldrich Ames. Not Aims. Accursed spellcheck.

  • Maxie

    Communism will never disappear because it is, in fact, a secular religion led by malignant narcissistic gods (Re: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). In my view it is a religion based on fear of life itself. It is a paranoid self-delusion reflective of Marx himself. Read "Witness" by Whittaker Chambers. Also http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/0…

  • deprogrammer

    My comments were based on a completely unsupportable statement Buchar made. Since that moment you've been screaming, yelling and stamping your little feet to try and evade that very simple truth. At first you conceded that my critic was true but then, when you realised admitting that left you with no options, you started to back peddle.
    You then went to the good FPMers play book and immediately started attacking me personally. Name calling, insults to my intelligence and psychological projection have become the basis of your response.
    Why can't you simply admit he made a bit of a fool of himself and move on?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Since that moment you've been screaming, yelling and stamping your little feet to try and evade that very simple truth."

      You're drifting even further from the original discussion by projecting your emotional reaction on to my words. You appear more delusional each time you react here.

      "You then went to the good FPMers play book and immediately started attacking me personally. Name calling, insults to my intelligence and psychological projection have become the basis of your response."

      Play book? I was sincerely trying to show you that it might be your fault. Your struggle with your own faults makes you hyper-sensitive to legitimate criticism.

      "Why can't you simply admit he made a bit of a fool of himself and move on?"

      Bingo. If you contemplate this question long enough, you might see where the tension comes from: its you. I already stated that it was a subjective opinion, and then offered my own. You present the case as an absolute one, and your wrong about that. You just don't see it. Your lack of insight led naturally to a discussion about you, because the rest has already been clearly articulated about subjectivity, explicit versus implicit, and so forth.

      You're a polemicist, and not a very effective one. Whether that is yet another blind tendency I don't know. Look, nobody expects you to be perfect. I'm just trying to help you trace the origins of the conflict you presented: it's you.

  • Gregory Byrne

    I think that there have always been incidents where ruthless dictators, with or without an ideology, have become a threat. The problem is that democratic societies do not have the will to respond. IN the 1930s it was obvious that the democracies had to confront Nazi Germany but nobody wanted to increase spending on defense so as to be able to do something about it.. Democratic states have always been like that going back to the ancient world. They always finish up suffering enormous casualties when war become unavoidable simply because politicians and voters could not face reality when they should have. Frederick the Great said that diplomacy without armaments is like an orchestra without instruments. IN other words it is useless but unfortunately this simply truth is not faced in democratic societies until it is too late. It's likely that America will soon have a government that is prepared to act on this sort of information but the public won' t like it.