Those who fear Russia are easily mocked. “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming,” is on video. Watch it and laugh. Concern about communist subversion is also mocked. All you have to do is remember what a bad egg Joseph McCarthy was, if you remember at all. To allay any lingering doubt or fear, go to Russia and take the KGB tour. See all the rusting submarines and missile boats you want. You can even see rusty signs in front of Russia’s ABM radar at Sofrino.

If you subscribed to “National Review” when it was still under the influence of Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham, you may remember a completely different magazine than exists today. It’s funny how vigilance and a sense of danger can be turned into smug self-satisfaction over time.

Twenty years ago, a Russian KGB defector named Anatoliy Golitsyn went to see William F. Buckley, the editor of “National Review.” Golitsyn needed help on writing a book with the title “New Lies for Old.” It was about Russia’s strategy of faking the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. As it happened, Buckley showed Golitsyn the door.

After the “patron saint of American conservatives” closed the door on the truth about communist strategy, few would have the courage to look back and say that Golitsyn was right. The changes in Eastern Europe have been deceptive, orchestrated and calculated from on high. The strategy has been to disarm the West and get communist bloc countries inside NATO – to subvert the alliance from within.

Consider the Czech Republic as an example. Having entered NATO, it is yet controlled by the old communists who are waiting for a signal from Moscow. That’s all it will take for them to reverse the changes that have taken place since 1989. Yesterday, I received a letter from a politically active Czech citizen, Hana Catalanova. “I know how hard this is to make people see,” she wrote. “You might think it is better over here … no, it is not!”

The big lie of 1989, the grand deception, was cynically calculated to take advantage of modern apathy and ignorance: “… we are actually living our lives in such lies, and people don’t care,” wrote Catalanova. “What about the next generation, our kids?”

Hana worries about freedom and the truth. Explaining how the communists retained control after the Velvet Revolution of 1989, she noted, “The problem here is that too many people were involved and engaged in shady deals with the secret police and corruption … betraying their friends, fellow workers, next door neighbors. And this is such a small country.”

America has a different excuse for turning its back on freedom and the truth. As I once told a leading Russian military defector who asked about America’s unpatriotic attitudes, “They’re too busy shopping and having fun.”

The Czechs have another problem. “In towns and villages everyone knows everyone,” explained Catalanova, “They are hiding their past behind the silence. They stay deaf to everything that doesn’t concern them, because if they speak up, somebody might tell who they were before. I can tell you, it is all very depressing.”

Hana Catalanova has written an important essay on the imprisonment of Captain Vladimir Hucin, a Czech official who has uncovered the truth about secret communist structures controlling important public institutions. “The whole world must know that communism is not dead,” wrote Catalanova. “It is very much alive and threatens to overthrow the world democracies.”

People here in America look around and wonder why the environmentalists are so strong, why business is under assault and rural property rights are no longer secure. They wonder why so many are teaching Marxist propaganda in schools and universities. Some of us cannot understand why our political leaders keep insisting on further military cutbacks as they continue to do business with the gangsters in Beijing and Moscow.

The short answer is: We’ve been subverted, infiltrated, duped and manipulated by communists and leftists. We have been too busy shopping and having fun to notice their “long march” through our institutions. We have been too absorbed in our careers and personal satisfactions. And now our country has its own hidden (or not so hidden) communist structures. As Russia and China prepare new missiles against us, our own state system allows itself to be unthinkingly nudged toward self-dissolution.

The danger is real, despite all the ridicule that comes to mind about “communists under every bush.” Have you talked to your daughter’s social studies teacher? Have you any idea where all this political correctness ultimately comes from?

If I joined the present chorus writing about shark attacks, the response to my column would be huge. But since I write about the advance of communism, about evidence that our Cold War enemy has been playing a trick on us, I get hardly any response at all. Americans have lost their sense of self preservation, their sense of history.

Do you really think that an enemy of more than four decades simply ran up the white flag because he couldn’t “pay the bills”?

Of course, that’s what you want to believe to keep your peace of mind. But this peace of mind is for fools. Give it up and get with the facts and testimony. The superficial reports on Russia, Chechnya, Eastern Europe and the collapse of communism are laced with falsehood and distortion. Such reports do not convey a real understanding of events.

French journalist Anne Nivat’s book on the Chechin war has recently been translated into English. It deserves to be widely read, though few will understand its importance. Nivat disguised herself as a Chechin refugee and watched events close up. Many of the Chechins she interviewed felt the war was a Kremlin puppet show. “I’m ashamed for Western Europe, where you live in a world of lies,” an elderly Chechin told Navat. “We are all victims, manipulated by the politicians in Moscow.”

The same could be said for America.

It was a sly national legislature that hit upon the idea of flattering the majority with a holiday in their honor. Politicians, with their indifferent work habits, huge staffs and long vacations, live far above the toiling masses. Nevertheless, they need those masses at re-election time. And what better way to secure the common man’s good will than proclaiming the celebration of Labor Day?

Today the ruling class pays spare homage to the non-ruling class majority.

Is it shocking to think of our country as divided between rulers and ruled? Is it somehow un-American to poke a hole in democratic fables, to contradict the existence of “government of the people, by the people, for the people”?

After presenting, last Thursday, Joseph Schumpeter’s views on the positive role played by aristocracy in Western history, one reader – a solid member of the non-ruling class – wrote to ask: “who are the aristocrats whose boots you yearn to lick?”

I suppose it would come as a surprise to this “smart” fellow that although we don’t live in under an aristocracy, we nonetheless live under an oligarchy. This being the case, I might respond by asking: whose boots do you lick today?

Gaetano Mosca, whose “Elementi di scienza politica” is one of the great works of political science, wrote: “In all societies two classes of people appear – a class that rules and a class that is ruled.”

In America this fact is often obscured by the myth of democracy, which says that the majority governs.

But this is impossible.

The idea of “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” is one of those useful fictions, like the divine right of kings, which smooths the way for the ruling class while striking awe into those are ruled. To a mature sensibility there is nothing amiss here. All is well. The “iron law of oligarchy” is not a scandal. It suggests no grand conspiracy, no deep and abiding evil. Oligarchy has been the way of the world since the beginning of civilization, and it will remain until the end.

In the old days the ruling class had aristocratic ideals. Today the rulers have bureaucratic notions. When voting took place in 1788 we brought to high office the likes of George Washington – an aristocrat. More than two hundred years later, after the “managerial revolution,” we elected George W. Bush – a manager.

Whose boots would you rather lick, if licking is what the non-ruling class is obligated to do?

I sometimes think that all this talk about a grand “conspiracy” in high places is nothing more than the shocked reaction of people who are scandalized by oligarchy. Conspiracy books are filled with horrifying tales of coordination and collaboration in high places. Conspiracy books express moral outrage at the fact that a small minority sits at the top of society, deciding all questions – regardless of popular attitudes.

“When we say that the voters ‘chose’ their representative,” wrote Mosca, “we are using a language that is very inexact. The truth is that the representative has himself elected by the voters.”

The United States is a society like any other. Quite simply, the majority is ruled by a minority. As Mosca points out, there is no other way to organize society. Robert Michels – another political scientist – once noted that organization implies oligarchy. Unless you advocate anarchism, your political philosophy must boil down (in practice) to minority rule. “In reality,” wrote Mosca, “the dominion of an organized minority … over the unorganized majority is inevitable.”

Soothe yourself with democratic fictions as you like, but every state system is oligarchic and every country needs a state system. Despite what the extreme libertarians maintain, anarchy is not a safe option. We need an army to protect us, we need rulers to guide us, and we need a set of rules or
laws to make the process fair and orderly (i.e., we need a constitution).

Does the rule of law do away with oligarchy?

Not at all. Minority rule is not obviated by the Constitution. “A hundred men acting uniformly in concert,” wrote Mosca, “with a common understanding, will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one.”

This is true when the rule of law has collapsed, and it is true when the rule of law is fully operating.

With few exceptions, the only persons who have a chance to win elected office are those supported by organized minorities. The toiling masses, despite numerical predominance and a holiday all their own, do not really choose their rulers. They are flattered, bribed, cajoled and tricked into voting for Column A or Column B.

It is not a bad system. It is not a totalitarian system. But it is a far cry from “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” as mythologized by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.

A nation-state, according to Mosca, is the creature of its ruling class. What America is today and what it becomes tomorrow, depends entirely on the character of the political leaders. As you celebrate Labor Day, take a moment to consider the character of those now in office. Above all other indicators, this tells us where we are headed as a nation.

In his book, “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy,” Joseph Schumpeter
offers a sly plug for aristocracy. He suggests that without the protective
function of an aristocratic (i.e., warrior class), the free market and its
denizens have no practical means of defense. In other words, if a
money-minded society does away with aristocratic privilege and status, it
also does away with its own “protective strata.”

The truth or falseness of Schumpeter’s proposition is not easy to
determine. But a casual acquaintance with history leads me to suspect there
is some element of truth in it.

Even if one looks at the founding of our country one finds a soldier
of the aristocratic type – His Excellency, George Washington. Our nation’s
first president was even accused, in his lifetime, of being a “high flying
aristocrat.” After all, he was of the warrior class, dedicated to serve and
protect. He was the father of his country, a true “patrician” in the Roman
style.

Our founding fathers inherited many notions of nobility and freedom
from the aristocracy of ancient Rome. If not for this aristocracy it is
doubtful we would have known the language of freedom – derived from the
speeches of Cicero as well as the histories of Livy and Tacitus. It is no
accident that our founding fathers, in their political letters, often signed
themselves “Publius” or “Cato” or “Brutus.” These were Roman names
associated with Republican virtue. For ancient and Medieval thinkers, Rome’s
aristocratic Republic exemplified the ideal of “liberty.”

Of course, at this late hour nobody in America or Europe would
seriously argue for the establishment of an aristocracy. Today we have a
vast system of bureaucrats, functionaries, elected officials and the
superrich. Today we have a lower class and a middle class. Every man is a
commoner in America. For that matter, aristocracy is quite defunct in Europe
as well. Those who for centuries defended the West against Vikings, Mongols,
Turks and Arabs are no more.

Liberalism brought a revolt against the authority of barons, dukes and
kings. “Economically,” wrote Schumpeter, “all this meant for the bourgeoisie was
the breaking of so many fetters and the removal of so many barriers.”
Politically it meant the rise of democratic (or Republican) institutions,
where leaders were chosen by vote rather than by inheritance or combat.
“But,” wrote Schumpeter, “surveying that process from the standpoint of
today, the observer might well wonder whether in the end such complete
emancipation was good for the bourgeois and his world.”

This is a curious thing for a 20th century economist to say. How
could anyone possibly suggest that the elimination of aristocratic privilege
was an error?

According to Schumpeter, Europe’s aristocrats nourished the
bourgeoisie. They nourished and protected capitalism in its cradle. That
capitalism would turn against the aristocrats was not foreseen. But that’s
what happened. With the destruction of aristocracy in Europe, argued
Schumpeter, socialism became inevitable. “The aristocratic element continued
to rule the roost right to the end of the period of intact and vital
capitalism,” argued Schumpeter. It was the aristocracy, he added, that “made
itself the representative of bourgeois interests and fought the battles of
the bourgeoisie.”

Without being dominated by aristocrats or an aristocratic culture, the
bourgeoisie would be vulnerable to the barbarians of the 20th century – Nazis, communists, anarchists and nihilists.

It is very interesting, in this respect, what Gustav Le Bon wrote
about the bourgeoisie’s willingness to defend itself. According to Le Bon,
“Skeptical indifference … is the great malady of the modern bourgeoisie.
When, to the declamations and assaults of an increasing minority … nothing
is set up in opposition, one may be sure that the triumph of the minority is
very near at hand.”

Le Bon was troubled by middle class indifference to the requirements
of social defense. He asked the question: “Are the worst enemies of society
those who attack it or those who do not even give themselves the trouble of
defending it?”

What if egalitarianism and the elimination of class distinctions has
succeeded in destroying what was, according to Schumpeter and Le Bon, Western
Civilization’s protective strata? Can our MBA’s and bureaucrats defend the
Anglo-Saxon archipelago as admirably as George Washington or the Duke of
Wellington?

“The stock exchange is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail,” warned
Schumpeter, who added that the middle class is “rationalist and unheroic.”
In fact, middle class man “can only use rationalist and unheroic means to
defend his position or to bend a nation to his will.”

These are disturbing words for Americans, who are egalitarians to the
core. The notion that “all men are created equal” is branded into our
consciousness. But let us be honest for a moment. Men are hardly created
equal in reality. If you factored in education and training, men would not
long remain equal even if they were created so. Some are naturally gifted
from childhood. Some benefit from hard training and long study. It used to
be that aristocracy, under the best circumstances, was a training in
leadership that would begin at infancy. What we are now left to is the
training of opportunists by state functionaries.

If you wonder why our society increasingly gives way to enemies,
foreign and domestic, why decades have elapsed without the building of any
national missile defense, or why we have allowed Marxist professors to give
history lessons to our youth, perhaps Joseph Schumpeter and Gustov Le Bon
have the answer.

Just trace the line of leadership in this country from George
Washington to George Bush. The gradual progression downward should be
evident to any thinking person.

Bill and Gary are middle-aged politicians who like to have sex with a variety of women, or at least that’s the public perception. As married men and public figures, they both characterize themselves as “basically faithful” and moral, although admittedly imperfect.

This is a politically effective way of qualifying bad behavior. When you are determined on an evil course, remind everyone that human beings are imperfect. As Christ Himself once said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

(In their zeal to follow Christ, the House and Senate are sure to remain silent.)

Bill and Gary are powerful, clever men. Although they share the same taste in women, they do not share the same philosophy when it comes to getting caught. When cornered by investigators Bill admitted a few things, depending on your definition of the word “is.” Bill even apologized on TV. Later he closeted himself with ministers and evangelists, searching for salvation.

But Gary has handled things a bit differently. When evidence of his affair with Chandra Levy became overwhelming, he also went on TV. But there was no blubbering confession. Gary was vague, evasive and not in the least apologetic. He did not follow Bill’s successful method. He did not feel anyone’s pain.

While Bill quickly admitted the error of his ways, Gary pointed to the errors of others. He accused one witness of seeking publicity and financial gain. He said that the missing girl’s mother had mischaracterized his honest and forthright replies. The police had also made mistakes.

Bill no doubt watched Gary’s television appearance with dismay. Everything is so simple? Why not admit to a troubled childhood? Why not confess and receive forgiveness?

Imagine the conversation if Bill called Gary to offer some advice:

“I’ve been in your shoes, buddy, and you’re making a big mistake,” Bill would say.

“Why is that Mr. President?”

“You should have asked forgiveness. You should have admitted everything,” Bill would suggest.

“I never had a cross word with that girl, Chandra Levy,” Gary would interject.

“Of course you didn’t, Gary. That’s not the point. It’s all about humanizing your image. Everybody makes mistakes.”

“I’ve been married for 34 years, and I’ve not been a perfect man, and I’ve made my share of mistakes,” Gary would then explain.

“I know, I know, we all have,” Bill would respond, “and there’s no shame in it. The shame is in going down because you can’t admit it. That’s the way Nixon went down. You don’t want to be a Nixon, do you?”

“It’s out of respect for my family, and out of a specific request from the Levy family.”

“Hey Gary, were those little sex sessions respectful of the family? Get off it, buddy, this is your friend Bill talking. I know the score. I know what’s happening here. Don’t insult my intelligence.”

“I never had a cross word with her,” Gary would repeat.

“If you admit your mistake people will forgive and forget,” Bill would say again. “Look at how they forgave me. My popularity ratings soared higher than ever.”

“I never told that girl to leave her I.D. at home,” Gary might offer.

“What does that have to do with anything?” Bill would say with exasperation. “Trying to give you advice is like talking to a brick wall.”

“I didn’t bury her under a brick wall,” Gary would blurt, compulsively.

“So what did you do with her? Maybe I can be of help there, too,” Clinton might finally offer.

Here is where the men are separated from the boys, the lightweights from the heavyweights, the brilliant politicians from the bland mediocrities. America’s native criminal class should take note. The model of American political corruption is also an oracle.

Earth to Gary, Earth to Gary: Are we learning yet?

Related offer:

Save 40% on J.R. Nyquist’s foreign policy eye-opener “‘The Origins of the Fourth World War,” available in WorldNetDaily’s online store.

]]> http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10602/feed/ 0 http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10556/ http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10556/#comments Thu, 23 Aug 2001 01:00:00 +0000 J.R. Nyquist http://wp.wnd.com/?p=10556

Back on Feb. 26 I wrote about the controlled collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. I presented testimony from Polish, Czech and Romanian sources about the ongoing communist domination of state institutions in those countries.

Further testimony is now emerging from the Czech Republic where dissidents are jailed and legal rights ignored. The supposedly extinct communist secret police, now operating underground, are effectively blocking the investigation of links between Vaclav Havel’s regime and secret communist structures specifically created to dominate the country’s government and economy during the current period of false democracy.

In a letter to the American Bar Association, former political prisoner and leading dissident Petr Cibulka explained why it was inappropriate for Czech President Vaclav Havel to receive the 2001 CEELI Award at the ABA’s annual meeting in Chicago on Aug. 4. “This news has reached us,” wrote Cibulka, “right at the moment when all just people in our country must face the fact that today’s regime creates new political prisoners.”

Cibulka then described the arrest and imprisonment of Vladimir Hucin, a former captain in Czech intelligence who worked to expose the machinations of left-wing hardliners. “The truth is,” Cibulka wrote to the ABA, “the militant Communist Party, led by high-ranking officials of the former regime, openly proclaims intentions to reinstate this oppressive system in our
country – even by force.”

When Vladimir Hucin threatened to expose hidden communist structures and plans for a return to totalitarian methods, these same hidden structures moved against him. “Vladimir Hucin was suddenly dismissed from his position,” wrote Cibulka to the ABA, “and so were some of his colleagues, without ever being told the true reasons.”

Hucin was imprisoned, charged with 12 criminal offenses and held for several months. “The latest news in his case,” explained Cibulka, “is that the state prosecutor has made a request to the court in order to obtain an approval for Hucin to undergo psychiatric tests.”

It appears that the communists behind the Havel regime want the names of Hucin’s informants. They want to know who compromised a clandestine operation that uses Havel’s face as a political front. In spite of the official dissolution of the communist secret police (STB), the tentacles of
this organization remain at work. According to the careful research of Mr. Cibulka, leading STB agents now control the Czech state administration, banking and the national economy. Secret structures, formed and directed by the Ministry of Interior, preserve communist control beneath a
democratic-capitalist facade.

“We are sure of the fact that Hucin’s case calls for prompt international intervention,” wrote Cibulka, calling for a commission to look into the situation. “Neither burden of proving a criminal charge, nor presumption of innocence were respected in the Hucin case. We are very worried about Hucin’s health and life as such, because there have been many cases of applying drugs in order to get people to talk.”

The communists in the Czech Republic will not tolerate the exposure of their apparatus. “The state administration and police forces,” wrote Cibulka, “penetrated with communists and STB agents, are doing everything possible to keep Hucin’s case out of the public eye and beyond the reach of international security authorities.”

Cibulka also presented the ABA with an interesting statistic. In the Czech Republic, 98 percent of those accused by the police are sentenced and punished. “What is your opinion of this?” asked the Czech dissident, who is also the leader of a non-parliamentary political party called “Right Bloc.”

“Almost all of the Czech people were disappointed,” continued Cibulka, “with the unbelievable reality that the former communist system was not properly dealt with, that the communist STB officials in the state administration, justice system, police, etc. were not replaced by trustworthy
professionals.”

Czech democracy is a simulacrum organized by the communists for strategic purposes. It is no small accomplishment, to be sure, that the Czech Republic has succeeded in joining the NATO alliance. Czech communist structures, secretly allied with Moscow, now penetrate the West’s main
military organization. “For someone on the outside,” wrote Cibulka to the ABA, “it all may look almost perfect, democratic. But it is not a secret anymore that repressions have been occurring for some time against freelance newspapermen and those in public service who have dared to raise their voices in criticism.”

Readers are encouraged to review additional testimony on this subject, including Jan Malina’s appeal to President Bush and Ross Hedvicek’s letter to the ABA. Czech dissidents have written to the U.S. Ambassador, the American Bar Association and President Bush. So far their plea for support and assistance has gone unanswered.

All the conservatives and pro-defense types applauded Donald
Rumsfeld’s appointment as secretary of defense. Such a tiger. Such a man of
steel. But now an element of doubt has crept into the equation. On Aug. 8
the Wall Street Journal reported that aides to Secretary Rumsfeld are
“calling for deep personnel cuts to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. …”

The plan is to gut U.S. conventional forces in order to raise the
money for high tech upgrades and anti-ballistic missile weapons. The plan
also involves gutting our nuclear deterrent as well. Putting all his eggs
into the high-tech basket, Rumsfeld is determined to arm us with exotic
devices of questionable utility. In exchange for these he is willing to get
rid of tanks and fighters and submarines.

Under Rumsfeld’s plan, the U.S. Army would have to eliminate almost
three divisions. The Air Force would have to eliminate a quarter of its
fighter squadrons. The Navy would liquidate two carrier battle groups. And
these changes are proposed at a time when the U.S. military is already
downsized and neglected.

It is peace for our time, say the economic optimists. So why worry?
But with the North Korean military forward deployed and mobilized, with the
Middle East on the brink of war, with the Balkans inflamed and a communist
insurgency in South America, the situation is not exactly coming up roses.

It seems the optimists have taken over Rumsfeld’s brain. His scheme to rob
from the present in order to afford the future makes fiscal sense. However,
it is a military mistake. You do not weaken yourself under any
circumstances. The world is not a Disneyland ride. Serious troubles are
developing on more than one front.

Quite mistakenly the Rumsfeld team thinks Russia is weak. They
believe that Europe is calm and safe. But a KGB officer is in charge of the
Kremlin. Russia is pulling paratroopers out of the Balkans and making them
available for “other” operations. The city of “Volgograd” may shortly change
its name back to “Stalingrad” (as suggest by Volgograd Oblast Governor
Nikolai Maksyuta on Aug. 10). And don’t forget the fact that the one-time
chief of staff of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev recently
acknowledged that the August 1991 coup – which collapsed the Soviet Union —
was ordered by Gorbachev himself.

Oh yes, everything is Russia is exactly as it appears. No threat from
that direction, say Rumsfeld’s optimists. The coast is clear for America to
downsize its military. In order to pave the way for this downsizing,
Rumsfeld decides to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It is time
to talk tough. It is time for Russia to accept the fact that we’re leaving
the ABM Treaty. Tell them that NATO is going to advance toward Russia’s
borders.

Watch as the color drains out of Vladimir Putin’s face.

A defense secretary proposing rapid unilateral disarmament on the
basis of false confidence is not about hear the real story. But listen to
what the American side is willing to propose. While in Moscow to see
President Putin last week, Rumsfeld told Russian reporters that America is
determined to reduce its nuclear arsenal. “We’re going to do it,” said
Rumsfeld, “regardless of what Russia does.”

The Russians must be trembling and humiliated – in between fits of
laughter.

To assist America’s defense secretary in his campaign to gut America’s
military strength, the Russian leadership is perfectly willing to back down
and complain of American bullying. It is all part of the game. The Russians
are smart enough to reassure Americans of Russia’s inferiority. “Tell them
what they want to hear,” is a good Leninist strategy. But “show them what
they want to see,” is even better. Resist the idiotic American proposals for
national missile defense and NATO expansion for a time, but in the end you
give the Americans what they want. And this in itself will destroy them.

Contrary to what many believe, the Americans do not hold all the
cards. The Russians have a working ABM system now. They have already
deployed this system, and they could have hundreds of ABM launchers in a
hidden reserve. This possibility was discussed by intelligence analyst
William Lee in his book, “The ABM Treaty Charade.” Suppose the U.S. begins
working on a system that will take 10 years to deploy. The Russians could
deploy something more effective in five months.

As for the eastward expansion of NATO, the situation is quite comical.
The generals of Russia’s former allies – Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary – are now inside the Western Alliance. Former communist functionaries are
in the councils of NATO. With a further eastward expansion of NATO the
Western character of the alliance begins to change. The trustworthiness of
officers who were trained by the communists should not be taken at face
value.

Even more alarming in this regard, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
recently said that Russia will eventually join NATO. “Thinking long-term,”
said Schroeder, “Russia’s NATO membership cannot be ruled out.”

The Russians have protested the Eastward expansion of NATO as they
protest the construction of U.S. national missile defenses. But Russia
protests too much. We must consider the possibility that in the long run
NATO expansion is to Russia’s advantage, both in terms of anti-American
propaganda and in terms of gaining access to the alliance.

It is a curious story, indeed, when a disarming power throws
ultimatums into the face of a clandestinely rearming power. The fact is,
Secretary Rumsfeld is no tiger. His policy is one of extended weakness.
Americans need to realize that Rumsfeld’s policy is not causing much
consternation. In fact, such policies are secretly celebrated in Moscow and
Beijing.

It crawls and it’s sneaky. Above all, it wants to distribute your
personal computer files to the world at large. This is one mean worm,
discovered on July 17, 2001. Known as the W32.Sircam.Worm virus, this
malignant pest is spread by way of the Internet. It contains its own SMTP
engine and begins by corrupting and renaming your Rundll32.exe file, used to
open applications. According to the Symantec anti-virus website, the W32.Sircam.Worm was recently upgraded from a level 3
to a level 4 threat.

Consider how many brushes you may have had with this worm.

Over the past month you have probably received an e-mail from an
associate that reads, “Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have
your advice.” Whatever the return address on the e-mail, however friendly the
introductory note, don’t open this puppy. The file you are being offered is
contaminated by the evil spawn of the Sircam Worm. Sad to say, the person
whose address is on this e-mail has already fallen prey. The “I send you
this file to have your advice” is the worm’s trick for gaining entry to your
system.

Once this critter gets into your computer it quietly colonizes the
system e-mail. While the machine is logged on to the Internet, the worm
takes files from the “My Documents” folder on your hard drive and sends them
to people whose addresses it manages to find.

In accordance with the laws governing pestiferous things, as described
by Jonathan Swift, this worm has troubles of its own:

Big fleas have little fleas

upon their backs to bite ‘em

And little fleas have other fleas

And so ad infinitum.

The W32.Sircam.Worm@mm virus has a worm of its own. To be more
precise, the virus has a bug which prevents it from replicating under Windows
NT or Windows 2000 operating systems. (But don’t be complacent, as this worm
may turn.)

If you happen to become the victim of the W32.Sircam.Worm, there is a
cure. First, if you don’t already have one, get a good anti-virus program
like Norton anti-virus. If the Sircam Worm is discovered on your system you
won’t be able to repair the infected files. It is best to immediately go online and download the W32.Sircam.Worm@mm removal
tool. Disable all active applications, including anti-virus applications
before running the removal tool.

If you’ve deleted or quarantined the virus and find you cannot run
applications, you’ll have to take a detour. As it happens, when you delete
or quarantine the infected files you are effectively disabling your
computer’s Windows applications. You won’t be able to open or run anything
(except DOS programs) because your Runll32.exe file was renamed and infected
by the worm. But don’t worry. Go to another computer and download the
removal tool onto a floppy disc. Then put the floppy into your sick machine and type: a:fixsirc.com (and presto!).

Thanks to our country’s anti-virus heroes, the worm’s days are
numbered and the Internet will soon be safe from the evil spawn that crawls
and distributes private files from the “My Documents” folders of unsuspecting
citizens.

If anyone is interested in reading full and complete instructions on
combating the W32.Sircam.Worm@mm virus, they are advised to visit
Symantec and look for links to their Sircam Worm page.

Best wishes and death to the worm!

Sergei Shishkaryov, deputy chairman of Russia’s State Duma Committee
on Foreign Affairs recently said, “Something is rotten in the kingdom of
America.” He spoke of “European concerns about growing problems in the
American economy.”

Russian analysts are abuzz with talk of a coming U.S. economic crash.
Some have stated that the collapse of the U.S. dollar is imminent. According
to the recent testimony of Russian economist Tatyana Koryagina, the American
dollar will soon be used as “wallpaper for toilet stalls.” In anticipation
of a crash, Russia officially adopted the gold chervonet as legal tender on
July 10. This is an unusual move, apparently modeled on what Lenin did 79
years ago in order to stem the tide of ruble inflation in the early Bolshevik
economy.

This column has touched on the fact that Russia has been slowly
phasing the U.S. dollar out of various economic sectors. Now we see that a
new gold currency is being established, which the Kremlin hopes will drive
the dollar out of Russia altogether. In fact, there has been talk about
banning the use of U.S. currency. (An unwise idea, which would only make the
dollar more romantic than ever.)

With regard to the Kremlin’s move toward gold, economist Tatyana
Koryagina told the Duma on June 29, “I am closely watching the measures taken
by the President [of the Russian Federation] and the Central Bank. From the
standpoint of pre-crisis measures, they are acting properly. It is possible
that after August 19, the ruble might become a rather good currency.”

What does she think will happen before Aug. 19?

Pavl Bykov, writing in the Russian financial weekly, “Ekspert,” also
expressed satisfaction with Russia’s move toward gold. “Withdrawing some
amount of rubles from circulation and replacing them with chervontsy minted
in the former Soviet Union … is not a bad combination,” wrote Bykov. “All
the better if the chervonet manages to crowd out the U.S. dollar and Russians
start using it as an alternative savings and currency.”

Is the dollar about to crash? Are the Russians taking these measures
to insulate themselves from a Western economic implosion?

For many decades the world’s anti-capitalists have awaited the crash
of the free-market system (or, what amounts to the same thing, the collapse of
the dollar). America’s strength is psychologically bound up with her economy
and currency. Should the American economy stumble, the United States could
be plagued by urban unrest, military collapse or social revolution.

It should be clear, though many will not understand, that Russia and
China have long wished for a collapse of the American economy. The resulting
power vacuum would be readily filled. At the same time, America is infested
with socialists and leftists who would cheer the failure of capitalism. This
would be their opportunity to say, “We told you so.”

The embittered public would be tempted by leftist rhetoric. The words
of free-market advocates would be scorned. Freedom itself would be imperiled
by crazy socialist schemes. There is no doubt that our political heritage
would be endangered.

All of this leads me to recall the words of a high-ranking communist
bloc defector, Jan Sejna, who wrote about the arrival in Prague of Secretary
Konstantin Katushev of the Moscow Central Committee. He came to give the
Czech communist hierarchy an oral briefing.

According to Sejna, the Czech leadership was uneasy about Russia’s
long range strategy. They felt the plan was “quite unrealistic.” Sejna
wrote in his memoirs that, “[Katushev] countered our skepticism by telling us
that the United States was a volatile society. ‘It can move to either
extreme,’ he said, ‘as we’ve seen. … If we can impose on the U.S.A. the
external restraints proposed in our Plan, and seriously disrupt the American
economy, the working and lower middle classes will suffer the consequences
and they will turn on the society that has failed them. They will be ready
for revolution.’”

It is interesting to note that in Russia’s 1998 default and crash, the
U.S. financial system was (by some reports) almost dragged down in the
undertow. In other words, an economic chain reaction begun in Russia could
affect us here. That is one consideration. Another one involves the rising
tensions in the Middle East. Then there are the Chinese and North Korean war
preparations in the Far East.

Taking all this into account, the economic expectations of Russia are
not without reason. For many months we’ve seen things building on a number
of fronts. At some point a crisis is inevitable. But is our nation
prepared?

Related offer:

Save 40% on J.R. Nyquist’s foreign policy eye-opener “‘The Origins of the Fourth World War,” available in WorldNetDaily’s online store.

]]> http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10411/feed/ 0 http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10365/ http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10365/#comments Thu, 09 Aug 2001 01:00:00 +0000 J.R. Nyquist http://wp.wnd.com/?p=10365

You think communism is dead, but when you meet a communist and find
yourself in an argument with him, or in a war with him, you begin to
reconsider. You begin to realize there is something alive on the other side – something that pushes against you with religious fervor.

Today someone very real is pushing against capitalism and freedom in
South America. A Marxist insurgency is taking hold in Colombia. Ignore it
as you like – it is there, it is real. Last month Human Rights Watch
published a report about the largest communist guerrilla group in Colombia,
known as FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). According to
Human Rights Watch the FARC’s barbarity extends to attacking medical workers,
kidnapping and murdering civilians, recruiting children and terrorizing
noncombatants.

How did the communist rebels respond to these charges?

Rebel leaders say that “bourgeois” rules of warfare represent “elite
interests,” and that is exactly what they are fighting against. Such is the
answer as given by Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries who fight for the
overthrow of capitalism. Forget about international law or “rules of
engagement.” The communist rule of engagement is to win the battle. Nothing
else matters.

All of this reminds me of a Colombian Marxist I got to know in
graduate school. He was a serious young man, filled with indignant anger.
Of course, he never admitted to being a Marxist and always dodged the
question when put to him. But this is typical.

The first night I met him, he professed his disgust with all things
American. In fact, he spoke insultingly to all the Americans he happened to
come into contact with. Without recounting his exact words, he would say
something to the effect, “You all disgust me. I hate being here in this
stupid country.”

Curiously, his American listeners seemed to react with sympathy. I
remember him standing there one day after class, telling a group of young
Americans how much he loathed them. “Then why are you here, in an American
university?” I asked. He looked at me with exasperation, as if I’d asked an
idiotic question. “Why don’t you just leave?” I suggested.

He bristled at these words.

I had many conversations with him. No doubt he held me in the utmost
contempt. One night I gave him a ride to his apartment. We got to talking
about criminals. He thought I was naive for thinking that killing and
robbing others had any bad psychological effects. “Back in Colombia, I
personally know people who kill for a living,” he told me. “They are happy
people, not at all filled with guilt.”

Later, in a political economy seminar, he spoke of trashing the world
market. “We should try and run the world without money,” he said. I
challenged this idea by noting that without money the world economy would
collapse. Such an experiment would condemn billions of human beings to death
by starvation. Not at all ignorant of economic reality, the young Colombian
snarled, “So what?”

The professor in charge of the seminar promptly cut short any
further discussion by announcing a break. But that wasn’t the end of the
discussion. Upon entering the men’s room I found my antagonist lecturing an
undergraduate on the virtues of a money-free economy. “It is a fresh idea, a
new idea that nobody has ever tried,” the young Colombian said with
enthusiasm.

“That’s not fresh or new,” I interjected while walking to one of the
stalls, “it’s as old as Plato.”

A few minutes later, when I was thirty paces from the men’s room I
heard rapid footsteps approaching from behind. I turned around and saw the
Colombian running directly toward me at full speed. I stood there as he came
to a halt directly in front of me, his face contorted with rage. Then he
screamed at the top of his lungs, “YOU’RE AN IDIOT!”

I encountered many Marxists and pseudo-Marxists at the University of
California. Some of these people would pretend to be moderate Democrats in
public, but in private they were seething Leninists. One professor, who wore
dirty old green jeans, believed that Mao Zedong was the greatest man of the
20th century. Yet another professor, who taught “Intro to Political
Science,” told his teaching assistants to “go out and make little Marxists”
out of the undergraduates.

All of this was going on, it seems, despite the fact that the
University of California required – in those days – its professors and
teaching assistants (i.e., graduate students) to swear an oath of allegiance
to the California and U.S. Constitutions.

I once asked two of my left-wing colleagues how they justified taking
this oath in the face of their anti-constitutional beliefs. “Oh,” they
replied, “nobody takes that silly oath seriously.”

Perhaps you wonder where all these people went now that communism is
dead and socialism discredited. Well, some of them are working for the
United States government. Some have security clearances at major defense
contractors. I once asked a professor about a graduate student with strong
communist beliefs who had gotten a job with Martin Marietta. “Did you hear
about Jack working at Martin?” I asked. “Yes,” the professor replied, “The
FBI was here in my office asking about him.”

“Did you tell them he’s a commie?”

“No,” the professor laughed.

After all, communism is dead. And if you repeat the phrase “communism
is dead” a hundred or a thousand times, it will become true. All the pundits
on television repeat this mantra, and they believe it. All the newspapers
give space to it.

Last year a friend of mine was dating a professor at Humboldt State
University. I asked her if he was a communist and she responded quite
firmly, “Oh no, he’s not a communist.” Curiosity got the better of me, so I
invited this professor to my house for dinner. He arrived a bit drunk, to my
surprise, and with little provocation he launched into an attack on fascist
dictators. He then proceeded to praise Chairman Mao, the founder of
Communist China and Fidel Castro.

I am always boggled by the letters I get from those who scold me for
believing that communism is still a threat. How could I be so out of step?
Why should I be so concerned with a meaningless communist insurgency in
Colombia? Come on, that’s just about drugs. There is no need to worry. If
we combat the drugs in Colombia the insurgency will burn out.

That’s the approach, in fact, of the United States government. We
don’t want our allies in Colombia to fight the communist rebels directly. We
urge them, instead, to fight the drug traffickers – the real bad guys.

I’m afraid that too many people in this country don’t realize the
inroads that Marxist ideology has made in this country. Communism has
entered our children’s thinking because it has been instilled into their
teachers. It has wormed its way into corporate boardrooms. It has entered
the FBI and CIA through moles like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen.
Communism is out there, full of hate, full of murderous revolutionary intent,
and ready to exploit the next great economic crisis of capitalism when it
occurs.

The universities in this country are not communism’s last refuge, as
some have alleged. They are communism’s decisive point of infection.
Because of this infection, when the revolution in Colombia spreads and
engulfs other South American countries, Washington will be paralyzed. Our
nation will not be capable of acting decisively.

How could it be otherwise? The communists have tunneled us out until
we have become hollow. And all the while we imagine that these same
communists do not exist.

Related offer:

Save 40% on J.R. Nyquist’s foreign policy eye-opener “‘The Origins of the Fourth World War,” available in WorldNetDaily’s online store.

It is not flu or cold season. The sun is warm and bright, the air is
hot and sticky. But you have that scratchy lump in your throat that heralds
the onset of a summer cold.

That’s right, you’ll have to take a hanky to the beach.

Summer colds are the worst. They can cramp your style, clog your
snorkel, slow your swimming and unbalance your skiing with retro-sneezes.
Sniffling in the sun, you may even feel feverish. But what can you do?
While others are having wet fun you are having wet misery. While others are
tanned and smiling, you will be drippy and sad.

It is so unfair, this summer cold thing – so horribly unfair.

Catch a cold in December and, well, it figures. You bundle up, you
buy boxes of Kleenex and extra cough drops. The whole ordeal becomes
bearable. You accept it with good grace. You can even seek temporary relief
by sipping hot tea. But try drinking hot tea in the dog days of August.
(What more can you do to break out in hives?)

You want to eat hot dogs and soda at a summer ball game, but
mentholyptus makes hot dogs taste funny. You want to drink that can of cool
soda, but carbonated drinks become positively dangerous, threatening to
backfire into your draining sinuses with unpredictable consequences.

People may argue the point, but no cold is worse than a summer cold.
You want to join that swimming party? “Go ahead,” says the summer virus,
“make my day.” You jump into a swimming pool and the virus gleefully spreads
to your ears. At first, all sound is muted. You may be 25 years old, but you
now require a hearing aid. Then comes the splitting pain of an earache.
And you know what that means. It is 105 degrees outside and your only relief
is to rest your head on a heating pad. The sweat beads up on your face and skull. It streams down to form a puddle until the accumulation threatens to short-circuit the heating pad, with the added possibility of death by electrocution.

A summer cold will drain you in more ways than one. Will there be
anything left besides a warm, salty puddle? At times like these you remember
that the human body is mostly water. And there you are, running like a
faucet. Yet you are told to “drink plenty of fluids.” This makes you even
runnier. You drink five glasses, and all five glasses pour back out of you.
How do you compensate? You try the cherry flavored cough drops because you
want to take a more cheerful approach to being sick, only the cherry drops
don’t work as well as the nasty tasting ones.

You might decide to try those pills, the ones that make the symptoms
go away. But this only guarantees that the cold will stay longer, return
sooner and hit harder on its return. So if you’re smart, you tough it out.
You spend that miserable week of affliction wondering who might have sneezed
or coughed in your direction. You think of that waiter with the sniffles
last week. You think of all the doorknobs you touched. Perhaps you forgot
to wash your hands at a critical moment.

Mother always said to wash your hands.

There are a few benefits to a cold. You don’t have to cook or clean
for anyone while you’re sick. After all, you don’t want to spread your germs
to the rest of your family and friends. On the other hand, those who are
maliciously inclined can purposely transmit their summer affliction to
others. And don’t think it doesn’t happen. In these modern times everyone
knows a cold is contagious.

We also know that misery loves company.

Related offer:

Save 40% on J.R. Nyquist’s foreign policy eye-opener “‘The Origins of the Fourth World War,” available in WorldNetDaily’s online store.

]]> http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10319/feed/ 0