FYI, I receive a portion of the proceeds from advertising links on this blog.

Saturday, November 18, 2023

Where did the Woke ideology come from?

What follows is an excerpt from THE RISE OF WESTERN LAWLESSNESS, which BTW, can also be picked up at Amazon here:

The Rise of Western Lawlessness-front cover

So check out what I had discovered a decade ago. I think you'll find this extremely interesting.
Begin excerpt:
The intention of the Communists to undermine conservative Christianity has been widely acknowledged since the close of WWII. What is not so well known are the revelations and forecasts made by Anatoliy Golitsyn, a former KGB agent. Golitsyn defected to the West in 1961. He began to file reports with the CIA to warn the United States of the Communists’ long range plan of deception.
After no action was taken by the government to counter Russia’s secret campaign, Golitsyn published his reports in the book New Lies for Old in 1984. He hoped that the American people could press the government into action. Golitsyn’s work continued to be generally ignored, and his knowledge of the secret goals of the Communists was dismissed by many authorities as a conspiracy theory.
In 1995, Golitsyn and Christopher Story co-authored a second book, The Perestroika Deception. By that time, 94% of the predictions made in New Lies for Old had been fulfilled. Both of Golitsyn’s books quickly went out of print and have not been republished. Christopher Story was assassinated in 2010 while investigating the Knights of Malta. (As a side note: The Knights of Malta were a continuation of the Knights Hospitallers. During the nineteenth century the Knights of Malta received 90% of their income from St. Petersburg, Russia.)
We will now examine Golitsyn’s knowledge of the Communists’ General Line, including some specifics on how the plan has been carried out to-date. Then we will note Golitsyn’s predictions which are either in progress, or yet to be fulfilled. The accuracy of Golitsyn’s inside knowledge of the Communist goals, and his methods for extrapolating the plans of the underground Politburo/KGB into the future, are undisputable.
In the two years prior to Golitsyn’s defection, from 1958 to 1960, the KGB and Politburo worked to improve the cause of global Communisms. The General Line might be thought of as the Communist Party Line, a platform similar to America’s Democrat and Republican Party Lines. However, the General Line was a permanent plan that didn’t change every four years. The General Line defined a general strategy by which the Communist agenda would advance. The tactical plans of the party could be altered as future circumstances might require. The General Line attempted to address the mistakes made by Stalin and Lenin, and to adopt the Leninist dialectic approach in order to overcome obstacles, particularly, the West’s growing anti-Communist sentiment.
The strategy was influenced by Chinese General Sun Tzu’s book, The Art of War. Two of Tzu’s keys to victory in war were adopted as the basis for Communist campaign of world domination: Appear to be weak and make the enemy think they are strong; and, Have a secret plan that doesn’t change—the enemy will lose because they don’t know the plan. The secret General Line was not to be changed. But tactics could be altered as needed to ensure the achievement of the overall goals. One of the primary goals was to condemn the repressive Stalinist approach to government. The strategists realized that hard-line Communism was repulsive to the rest of the world and was deterring the spread of Communism. Their tactical response was to give Communism a more acceptable image.
The initial objectives of the General Line called for a restructuring—“Perestroika.” It is obvious to any historian that leaders of an empire like the U.S.S.R. have never simply announced that they were going to release all of the nations within their control. Westphalia came after decades of bloody battle. What if the United States Congress suddenly announced that the U.S.A. would no longer be a union and all of the states were free to govern themselves? But the U.S.S.R. had a dissolution without a revolution. The Perestroika came from the inside out—it was a top-down decision. The Communists wanted to tickle the ears of the West by giving the appearance that capitalism had triumphed over socialism.
But the West didn’t know the secret plan that the KGB and Politburo would continue to control the so-called independent republics of the former U.S.S.R. The Party even created dissidents and opposition parties to give the impression that free forces were at work within the new republics.
The Soviet media portray Party-controlled strikes, demonstrations and disturbances in different parts of the USSR as real, domestic and nationalist outbreaks pointing to the disintegration and perhaps the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Orchestrated disputes between phony reformers and phony conservatives are reported as real struggles within the Party.

Series: Reagan White House Photographs, 1/20/1981 - 1/20/1989Collection: White House Photographic Collection, 1/20/1981 - 1/20/1989, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Series: Reagan White House Photographs, 1/20/1981 - 1/20/1989Collection: White House Photographic Collection, 1/20/1981 - 1/20/1989, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Then they replaced the hardliner image of Communism, giving it a human face by appointing the cheerful and relaxed Gorbachev.

Gorbachev and his strategists are not true democrats and never will be. They remain committed to socialism and Communism. They are a new generation of revolutionaries who are using ‘democratic’ reform as a new way to achieve final victory. The Communist strategists appreciated that they could not implement their strategy of convergence using the old, obsolete, Stalinist, Communist Party structure and dormant institutions like the old Soviet parliament. But they do believe that they can carry it out using new, revitalized, ‘democratic’ structures. They are therefore reorganizing the Party system, the Presidency and the legislature to give them more power and prestige and at the same time greater likeness to their American equivalents. Meanwhile, the Communist Party is apparently relegated to the shadows. The Communist Party, however, has not surrendered its real monopoly of power. In fact, it has broadened it by giving power to its members in the Presidency and Congress to execute the strategy of ‘perestroika’ and convergence. Greater Presidential powers are needed to carry out the strategy throughout the world. This is not a transfer of power from the Party to the President. The President remains a member and an instrument of the Party, the executor of its strategy.
Another hallmark of Communism was the “class struggle.” In the introduction of the Communist Manifesto, Marx asserted that the entirety of human history was the story of class struggle. One of the tactics of the General Line was to discontinue the argument of class struggle because of its negative connotations in the western mind. The Communists also wanted to silence the anti-Communist voices of the West by making anti-Communists appear to be radicals.
The paramount global objective of the strategy of ‘perestroika’ is to weaken and neutralize anti-Communist ideology and the influence of anti-Communists in political life in the United States, Western Europe and elsewhere—presenting them as anachronistic survivors of the Cold War, reactionaries and obstacles to ‘restructuring’ and peace.
Without doubt, the most effective and subtle strategy in winning the world to Communism was the reforming of both the U.S.S.R. and the Atlantic nations. The process of cross-assimilation of Communism and Capitalism was called “Convergence.” While the Communists were taking on the appearance of Capitalism and openness, the West was to be gradually socialized. Under the section heading of “CONVERGENCE THROUGH TACTICAL CHANGES AND DISINFORMATION,” Golitsyn explains the tactics of disinformation.
Now, the purpose of the intensified disinformation on ‘conservative’ resistance to Gorbachev’s reforms and on the Yeltsin affair is to win Western support for further arguments in favour of convergence and to widen the gap between genuine conservatives and liberals in the United States.
The rationale of this disinformation is that that there are two sorts of people: those who recognise change and seek to promote it, and those who oppose it—the implication being that those who oppose it are ‘enemies of progress and peace’, ‘cold warriors’, etc. This was the explanation given by Gorbachev to the prominent Soviet expert Marshall Shulman at a White House reception. Gorbachev added that ‘we have both kinds of people in both our countries’.
In this way Gorbachev gave evidence of his intention to project and promote Soviet strategy through influential American intellectuals. There are indications that the dismissal of Yeltsin as head of the Moscow Party organisation was prearranged, timed and publicised by giving Mr Dan Rather permission to interview him on the subject, on the Central Broadcasting System one month in advance of Gorbachev’s visit to the United States. The purpose of that specific disinformation was further to exaggerate the alleged pressure being brought to bear on Gorbachev by Soviet ‘conservatives’ (to whom Gorbachev was under latent pressure to defer), to highlight the role of both Soviet and American conservatives as obstacles to reform and ‘progress’ and to create favourable conditions for an alliance between Soviet and American liberals for the intended purpose of the ‘restructuring’ of both societies.
—end excerpt from The Rise of Western Lawlessness, by C. W. Steinle.

No comments:

Post a Comment