Cărticica Progresistului
Spielberg în dialog cu Iuri Bezmenov
Am văzut pe TCM un documentar interesant despre Spielberg narat de Spielberg. În general îmi plac filmele lui, iar cîteva îmi plac chiar foarte mult. Regizorul dezvăluie în ordine cronologică povestea nevăzută a fiecărui film: circumstanţe, motivaţii, dificultăţi, inspiraţii, estetică şi ca privitor nu poţi decît să te simţi privilegiat de statutul de martor la o astfel de confesiune. Înspre final Spielberg enumeră cîteva teme care l-au preocupat constant de-a lungul carierei, cum ar fi comunicarea dintre oameni sau mai pe scurt, dialogul. Menţionînd Întîlnire de gradul trei şi E.T., Spielberg mărturiseşte că unul din impulsurile care au alimentat geneza acestor filme a fost frustrarea sa din anii ‘70 şi ‘80 legată de lipsa de dialog dintre S.U.A. şi U.R.S.S. Întrebarea din subtextul celor două pelicule era: dacă civilizaţii diferite pot comunica una cu cealalta, de ce nu pot face acelaşi lucru două super-puteri locale? Dacă obstinaţia de a căuta forme noi de dialog este răsplătită în final de succesul comunicării dintre inteligenţe separate de ani lumină, de ce oamenii nu se pot înţelege între ei? Regretul lui Spielberg nu e pur şi simplu platonic. America este considerată implicit responsabilă de deteriorarea relaţiilor cu U.R.S.S. deoarece nu a urmărit dialogul cu suficientă perseverenţă.
Sesizează cineva enormitatea? Spielberg compară realitatea cu ficţiunea din filme. Nu există nici un fel de comunicare cu extratereştrii, nimeni nu ştie dacă vreun dialog e posibil sau cum ar avea loc şi cu atît mai puţin se poate specula în sensul că incăpăţînarea de a dialoga ar duce inevitabil la pace şi înţelegere între planete… şi totuşi Spielberg consideră mesajul auto-suficient al propriilor ficţiuni drept un criteriu valid de analiză. Această predispoziţie e larg răspîndită printre progresişti şi în particular credinţa în forţa prometeică a dialogului. Axioma progresistă a dialogului e simplă: dacă ai inamici înseamnă că n-ai dialogat destul. Corolar: X este ostil Americii deoarece America nu este dedicată dialogului, unde X aparţine unui set extensibil care include Al-Quaeda, Talibanul, Saddam Hussein, Europa, palestinienii, Iranul, etc. Sau U.R.S.S. în cazul amintirilor lui Spielberg.
E timpul să-l prezint pe Iuri Bezmenov.
Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism.
The result? The result you can see — most of the people who graduated in the 60’s, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
To rid society of these people you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.
And yet these people who have been programmed and as you say are in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept – these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?
Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in the future what the beautiful society of EQUALITY and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy and frustrated people, and Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously they will join the ranks of dissenters, dissidents. Unlike the present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Now you can get popular like Daniel Elsburg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being a dissident and for criticizing your Pentagon. In the future these people will simply be squashed like cockroaches for criticizing the government. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful and noble ideas of EQUALITY. This they don’t understand and it will be the greatest shock for them, of course.
The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years… Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it…. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.
Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system train another generation of people who think they are living at the peacetime. False. United States is in a state of war. Undeclared, total war against the basic principles and foundations of this system.
Okay, so what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?
Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of REAL patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain to them the real danger of socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government…. The moment at least part of the United States population is convinced that the danger is real, they have to FORCE their government, and I’m not talking about sending letters, signing petitions, and all this beautiful, noble activity, I’m talking about FORCING the United States government to stop aiding Communism…. and it is very easy to do: no credits, no technology, no money, no political or diplomatic recognition…
Fragmentele de mai sus şi clipurile care urmează fac parte dintr-un interviu pentru televiziune din 1984 în care fostul agent KGB Iuri Bezmenov, specialist în dezinformare şi război psihologic, discută candid despre strategia şi tacticile subversive împotriva Americii şi Vestului în general.
Subminare (geologie) – Formarea de nişe la baza unor abrupturi şi versanţi, care provoacă surparea acestora
Stîngiştii – Idioţi utili
Clipurile anterioare sînt extrase din documentarul original. Ce urmează este versiunea integrală a acestui documentar, găzduit pe Google Video şi intitulat Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press.
Ronald Reagan a fost criticat şi ridiculizat masiv cînd a numit Uniunea Sovietică drept un imperiu al răului. Printre altele, i s-a reproşat că ignoră dialogul în favoarea etichetelor simpliste şi provocatoare. Că pune ideologia mai presus decît raţiunea. Că ignoră voinţa americanilor şi europenilor doritori de pace. Că pune în pericol grav echilibrul fragil dintre cele două super-puteri. Pot umple pagina cu raţionamente similare. Nuanţate, sofisticate, înţelept îngrijorate, atotcuprinzătoare şi erudite, milioane de cuvinte meşteşugite din analize, critici, comentarii, cărţi, interviuri, toate devenite între timp o pastă amorfă pe fundul oceanului istoriei. Titanicul raţionamentelor progresiste s-a scufundat la contactul cu o sintagmă simplistă şi provocatoare. Istoria i-a dat dreptate lui Reagan.
Dialogul nu este un scop în sine şi nici o obligaţie de a întîlni interlocutorul undeva la jumătatea distanţei. E doar o unealta într-o trusă de scule care trebuie să cuprindă şi un sens adînc al propriei identităţi, convingeri morale de necompromis, antrenamentul de a căuta adevarul şi refuza minciuna. Din aceste motive sintagma lui Reagan a rămas în istorie şi regretul reproş al lui Spielberg e regretul unui idiot util. Văzută în retrospectivă, diferenţa dintre adevărurile simple surprinzînd esenţa realităţii şi falsificarea realităţii prin raţionalizarea laşităţii a fost diferenţa care a contat în rezultatul confruntării dintre lumea liberă şi comunism.
Rămîne de văzut dacă aceeaşi diferenţă va mai conta în rezultatul confruntării dintre lumea liberă şi islamofascism. Pierdut trusă de scule, nevoie urgentă de găsitor.
Discuţie
36 comentarii la “Spielberg în dialog cu Iuri Bezmenov”
Comentează
Categorii
Comentarii recente
- amanda13: dezgustator! altceva nu pot sa adaug.
- vlad: probabil instinctul de corb
- dr pepper: aaah, deci este vorba chiar de acel cornel dinu de la dinamo? hahaha...
- Imperialistu’: Din pacate, nu, nimic la indemana. Statul chinez nu te lasa sa...
- vlad: Cornel Dinu îl acuză pe Petre Roman Cornel Dinu il acuza pe Petre...
- CFG: Modelul chinezesc? Are cineva la indemana cateva link-uri privitoare la modelul chinezesc?...
- vlad: Un mister psihiatric: de ce e obsedat Victor Ponta de comunistul Che...
- vlad: @Costin, super bună ideea cu postarea statisticilor. zilele trecute mă gândeam și eu...
- vlad: Flo (aici Florinelu ) este un prieten drag foarte VIU –...
- costin: si ca sa aducem discutia mai pe meleagurile noastre Cati copii au fost...
- Imperialistu’: Anna> Din pacate, ambele sunt femei. Ba chiar si angajatul CNN care...
- despina: Corect !
- Anna: Femeie sau demon?
- Imperialistu’: Ai pus punctul pe i, Florinele.
Etichete Tematice
Etichete Geografice
Etichete Nominale
Patruped pe Facebook
Patruped pe TwitterRSS
ArticoleVizitatori Online
- 09 visitor(s) online
- oferit de WassUp
Login
Ce-ai luptat azi împotriva încălzirii globale?
Si Munich trebuie interpretat in acelasi registru, Emil. Finalul filmului – ultima discutie cu Ephraim, avand in fundal World Trade Center din New York, poate iti mai aduci aminte – vroia sa transmita cam acelasi mesaj: vezi Doamne, trebuie sa recurgi la dialog, in caz contrar consecintele fiind dintre cele mai dure. Nimic mai fals. Ceea ce nu vor sa inteleaga cei precum Steven Spielberg este ca nu poti sa porti un dialog cu cei care il refuza din start. A mai incerca in astfel de conditii sugerea nu deschidere, ci prostie curata. Ce dialog poti purta cu gruparile teroriste palestiniene? Cum poti sa tratezi cu cineva care te uraste atat de mult incat este in stare sa renunte la proprii copii numai pentru a-ti face rau? Golda Meir a spus candva ca pacea va veni in momentul in care arabii isi vor iubi copii mai mult decat ii vor uri pe evrei. Ultimii ani dovedesc ca a avut dreptate.
Si intr-adevar, idiotii utili ne sufoca. Intelectuali, politicieni sau vedete, toti joaca acelasi rol: coloana a V-a a inamicilor lumii libere. In universitati suntem invatati ca Occidentul este vinovat pentru toate relele de pe lumea asta, in politica auzim despre lipsa de consideratie a americanilor pentru sentimentele si drepturile criminalilor planetei, iar vedetele tin lectii de moralitate pornind de la opera lui Michael Moore si Al Gore.
Da, uitasem de Munich. Spielberg prefera sa uite ca in realitate israelienii au dialogat mult si de pomana cu Arafat. Vezi acordul de la Oslo si un amanunt: dupa acord Fatah a continuat sa-si aniverseze ziua nationala pe 1 ianuarie, adica sa comemoreze public 1 ianuarie 1965, data primului atac terorist al Fatah impotriva Israelului (incercarea nereusita de a exploda sectiuni ale retelei nationale de distributie a apei). Fii atent la an: razboiul de Sase Zile avea sa aiba loc abia in ‘67. In ‘65 Gaza si Cisiordania nu erau teritorii ocupate si nu existau refugiati palestinieni. De asemenea, Spielberg uita ca in 2000 Arafat a refuzat oferta unui stat independent in care 90% din cerintele palestiniene erau satisfacute si a preferat in schimb sa declanseze a doua intifada. Inca un amanunt pe care il ignora cu desavirsire: de la mijlocul anilor ‘90 societatea palestiniana educa generatii de copii in cultul martiriului si al jihadului. Imagineaza-ti dialogul cu viitorii adulti palestinieni.
Emisiune palestiniana pentru copii – Mama a omorit cinci evrei si e in paradis
Emisiune palestiniana pentru copii – Soricelul Farfour
Emisiune palestiniana pentru copii – Albinuta Nahoul
Nu-mi vine sa cred ca l-ai gasit si pe Iuri Bezmenov!! Prima oara am dat de el acuma vreo 3 ani cand am gasit o conferinta de-a lui la o universitate din California de prin ‘83. Aici purta numele de Tomas Schuman si mi-a luat ceva pana sa ii aflu numele real. Da tot ce zice omu asta e, mind blowing.. vorbea acuma 20 de ani despre etapele subversiunii comuniste si le vezi in ziua de azi cum au evoluat in directia prezisa de ei.
Am citit si traducerea articolului lui Bruce Bawer. Am citit cartea lui vara trecuta si de atunci am devenit mult mai interesat si vanez blogurile. Oricum, foarte tare cum gasesc un clip, un autor, vreun eveniment si daca verific situl tau am sanse sa il gasesc comentat in cateva zile
Bezmenov ar trebui sa faca parte din programa scolara. Mai ales in Vest. Gluma-gluma, dar ai dreptate. Ce spune el e mindblowing si in primul rind datorita validitatii in ziua de azi. Ai citit 1984, cred. Realitatea descrisa inginereste (calm, cu principii de design si detalii de implementare) de Bezmenov in ‘83 si fictiunea publicata in ‘48 sint infricosator de adevarate. Sint, nu au fost. Well… e simbata, ma duc intr-un pub la un pint de ale si fotbal din Premier League. Asta-i calmantul meu
Apropo, ai citit America Alone de Mark Steyn?
nu am citit America Alone, dar am auzit de ea si m-am uitat acuma peste cateva reviewuri si cred ca o sa o citesc. Dar deocamdata, incerc (si prea imi iese) sa nu mai citesc atata politica si despre cum lumea se duce de rapa, si am inceput un Garcia Marquez sa imi mai clatesc creierii. Si functioneaza!
*NU prea prea imi iese.. that is
Voiam să „mulţumesc” pentru film. (E ca un fel de versiune aplicată a lui „săru’-mâna pentru masă”.)
[...] On Patruped’s blog, this video was embedded, and I could not help but to be riveted by the contents. This is a video about Yuri Bezmenov, a former Soviet propagandist for the KGB who defected in 1970. This video was made in 1985 shortly before the fall of communism in the USSR in 1991. In my opinion, the contents are very interesting and Yuri makes some interesting forecasts which some did come true such as the inevitable fall of communism in the USSR. It has a clear right-leaning bias, but if one chooses to see through the bias and see it for the historical context it is worth a watch. Does it mean I disagree with the bias? No, not really, but I am in no position to make an informed opinion. Just watch it and decide for yourself as to the contents. [...]
I actually wonder whether Mr. Bezmenov is actually still alive today, would the editor of this site know ??
TellTell> We’ll just have tot wait for Emil. As far as I’m concerned, I couldn’t find much about Yuri Bezmenov, just that his full name was Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov. Jack had better luck than I did.
TellTell, as far as I know Bezmenov is no longer alive. I cannot tell you when he died, neither can I direct you to an online source to confirm my claim. I remember coming across this information on the web in the period when I discovered his interview.
Thank you guys for looking into this. I did do a search myself but wasn’t able to get anything confirmed either.
I do thank you for posting this, if not only for the highly animated way Mr. Bezmenov takes on all these misconceptions us Westerners used to have during this time.
You’re welcome, TellTell.
I could not find ANYTHING about this man, and since there is little information available made me question the validity at first. However, the pictures and the accurate recollections (aside from the bias) led me to believe it was accurate.
the problem is, with a defection such as that made me wonder why it was not huge news as the commander in communist Romania’s who defected a few years later.
I decided to look on a news archive search and found this:
http://news.google.com/archive.....amp;tab=wn
if somebody has access to it may get more information. As for his death and what he did is nonexistent.
Jack, I found the link I came across last year when I was looking myself for more info about the guy. It says very little and it’s impossible to cross-check.
Counterpoint blog
It claims that Bezmenov settled in Montreal, Canada, and became a CBC announcer. I shall try to investigate this CBC trail. It’s also mentioned that he might have died in 1997.
About his defection. I don’t think you can compare Bezmenov’s defection with Pacepa’s (the Romanian general head of the Securitate, i.e. the Romanian KGB). For once, Pacepa was a much more important figure, and secondly, Pacepa’s knowledge about the Eastern Bloc’s spying operations and its ties to Middle Eastern terrorism was vastly superior to Bezmenov’s.
This doesn’t mean that the latter’s defection wasn’t an event worth reporting in the media. I don’t know why it received such little attention at the time.
What I find disturbing is the media’s reluctance to report on Bezmenov after his lengthy interview with Griffin. I mean, here you have an insider who lays out the guts of the Soviet propaganda tactics and strategy in the West, and the media looks the other way. Think about it. It was in ‘84 or ‘85 when he gave his interview. The Reagan years. As you may remember, Reagan was constantly criticized for his tough approach to the Soviets. It may be that the media more or less ignored Bezmenov because his testimony validated completely Reagan’s policies. And think of it now, the media’s reaction actually ended up validating Bezmenov’s assertions about how subverted the Western media had become.
I wonder though, what do you mean by “bias”? Bezmenov’s or the interviewer’s? In what sense, bias?
Yes, it did have a conservative bias. I am not against bias and Yuri was giving his opinions and insight based on his own bias. Also, the interviewer is a member of a conservative think tank. Does that make it bad? No. I am simply saying from a neutrality point of view, I was only interested in the historical meaning of it.
Frankly, I am a little baffled by your claim of a conservative bias in Bezmenov’s account. I would really appreciate a specific example, because I cannot think of any. The fact that, according to Bezmenov, the left leaning individuals and institutions have been easily duped by Soviet propaganda, does not show conservative bias, in my view. That was the reality, and Bezmenov backs it up with facts. Anyway, it’s a minor point. I mention it though, because it shows a different perception than someone who has lived under Communism.
This is where I have to respectfully disagree. Yes, he does back it up with facts, and I do not dispute it. Because left leaning individuals may be swayed by Soviet propaganda or other propaganda is true. The same goes with a conservative leaning thought process. One good example of propaganda in America is the Century of the Self. Many disagree with this series and I respect that. Both back things up with facts and propaganda subversion is a very exacting science as Yuri suggested. I will concede his focus was not about other trains of thought and was focused on Soviet subversion which I find fascinating.
So to conclude, it is only my impression and impressions vs. reality may be different. I do not mean to cause any problems because as you said it is a very small point because overall, the video gives very gripping insight, and despite my impressions, it was extremely informative.
There is nothing biased in recognizing the criminal and totalitarian nature of the communist regime. It’s like ignoring Auschwitz when taking into account national-socialism. It cannot be done. Communism is about centralized economics, but it also encompasses the terror, the gulag, the repression. Kolima is communism. Katyn is communism. The Great Leap Forward is communism. You can’t possibly talk about communism and pretend to be objective without taking into account it’s evil nature.
It’s very easy to talk about unbiased (?) analysis when living in country who had no Red experience whatsoever.
Hi Jack, I really appreciate your reply. You see, we do indeed talk about this documentary, and even though it’s at the level of personal impressions, I find it fascinating. I know we are all open-minded people here, and such an exchange of views is healthy indeed. But let me get to the point. I’ve been thinking this afternoon how to explain to you in simple and concise terms why I don’t regard Bezmenov’s account as conservatively biased.
It goes like this. At its core, Communism has been (still is) a Lie. Its proportions are so massive, it truly warrants an upper case L. Exposing this lie, as Bezmenov does, is indeed a political stance. However, it is not ideologically tainted. There is a difference between the political significance of a statement and whether the motivation is ideologically skewed. Sometimes the latter drives the former and the ripple effect is that the former obfuscates the latter. However, in the case of a Lie of such magnitude, I don’t see any ideological spin tainting the sheer act of exposing that Lie for what it is. His account could have come from a Socialist, Liberal, Libertarian, make your pick. Very unlikely from a Communist though, I agree.
But a lie is a lie, and calling it like it is, is free of ideological weight. This is why I view this issue like I do, Jack.
Jack:
Sure you must realize that Imperialistu’ and emil are right, unless you espouse the post-modern view of history as a subjective narrative, where everything goes despite evidence but makes sense in the sujbect’s own constructed world simply because it satisfies the subject’s sense of victimhood in the social pecking order (see the outrageous lies at the core of Afrocentrism, whereby Aristotle and the other Greeks are seen as stealing the wisdom of the Egyptians, found to have been “black,” against all rational evidence, or the equally outrageous lies of the phony and meaningless Nobel Peace Prize winner, Rigoberta Menchu, who lied through her teeth about how oppressed she was, and turned out to have been coached and defended, on the basis of post-modern theories that historical evidence is fictional, by a French woman who actually ghostwrote Menchu’s memoir.)
I’m not one to be easily offended in these times of wearing offense as a badge of honor and as a marker of identity that varrous groups use to gain undeserved entitlements, past merit and character. I don’t believe in those people being offended, really. It’s a racket, it’s a scheme to get money and privilege for nothing, for no achievement. Just like I don’t believe in Muslims being offended by the cartoons. It’s all a cynical ploy.
Having said that, I can’t stand by and listen/read stuff that sends the horrenduous suffering of peoples under Totalitarian Communism to the pigeon-hole of “conservative bias.”
There’s nothing “biased” or “conservative” in exposing the still-to-be-told evil communism has caused. If spelling the truth as I and many people have lived it is “conservative bias,” so be it.
I really don’t care.
What interests me about your enterprise regarding North Korea, under the circumstaces, is whether you are after the truth about the ultimate totalitarian society, or you’re doing it as a challenge to penetrating impenetrable, closed-in, somewhat exotic cultures, an anthropologist who goes into strange cultures to record strange rituals and write academic dissertations?
Hello one and all, and I thank you for the comments and insight. Before I begin to make my positions and purpose of DPRK Forum clearer, let me first say I will be the first to admit when I am wrong. Impressions are just that; impressions. Impressions can be changed in the event somebody with a better grasp of a subject can steer a person who is not as keen on said subject to a better understanding.
With that said, a few things:
1. Several made the point that communism is a lie and hurts. This I agree with. The same goes with holocaust denial. Let me say I am not a supporter nor have ever been a supporter of regimes be it communist, fascist or other extremist regimes that suppress movement, speech, religion and the like. Also, I certainly do not support regimes that send millions off to gulags or concentration camps to be exterminated in the name of the state. I hope I made that crystal clear.
I never said communism was not evil. Communism does not work, never worked, nor will it ever work. History has proved this over and over again. If it did work, the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc and the like would be holding up just fine. The few remaining are not doing well (Cuba, North Korea) either. As Yuri said very accurately was communism and fascist societies have a timebomb built in. the Utopian ideologies are just that, chasing rainbows, and in that process millions suffer/ed and die/d. I do not dispute this point, nor will I ever dispute it. I make these points very clear in my blog all the time.
And you are very, very correct when you say it is easy to look at it in a skewed light when one has not experienced these things first hand. The United States has been staunchly anti-communist and is one of the reasons communism or fascism never took power. That I am grateful for, and I do not downplay for those that have experienced this first hand. If this was the impression I gave, then I apologize. That was not the intent whatsoever.
2. Next:
Because I view it as a bias and stance does not mean it is tainted. I think that’s where this discussion went wrong. I thought I made it clear when I said I have nothing against conservatives or liberals for that matter. I am against totalitarianism, supression and lack of human rights. I believe that is not a conservative or a liberal issue, it is a bi-partisan issue and should be that way in my view. All should be able to express view be it liberal or conservative, which has been squelched in regimes such as the DPRK. People have a point of view, and Yuri was giving his insights based on said views based on his experiences. I will repeat it again to make it crystal clear; it does not make it bad. That was the impression I got from it. It does not make communism any less of a failed ideology.That is my own view on the matter. Others may disagree with that, and that is fine. With that said, it is not in an attempt to downplay the views or the experiences you, others or Yuri have experienced.
Now, with the better insights of those who have experienced it and/or have a better grasp of the subject to make the issue clearer gives me a better understanding of the context in which it was given. Thank you for that. As I said before, impressions and reality are diferent things. Communism never took power in the United States because of the Cold War, McCarthyism, and general anti-communist stance. That is a good thing in my own biased view. History and bias are different things (history turns into fact), but too many times bias and history get mixed together. That is why I was trying to watch the video from a purely historical perpective instead of the biased one. Perhaps I got the wrong impression. Maybe Yuri was not trying to give his warning that communist ideology will creep into the U.S. political system based on a conservative bias. I will watch it again and research further. As I said on the post:
3. Lastly:
You can find the answer here.
If you folks wish to talk some more, or ask questions in real time, feel free to contact me via instant messenger:
MSNim: peter.pansy@hotmail.com or Yahoo: albn_again
Hello one and all, and I thank you for the comments and insight. Before I begin to make my positions and purpose of DPRK Forum clearer, let me first say I will be the first to admit when I am wrong. Impressions are just that; impressions. Impressions can be changed in the event somebody with a better grasp of a subject can steer a person who is not as keen on said subject to a better understanding.
With that said, a few things:
1. Several made the point that communism is a lie and hurts. This I agree with. The same goes with holocaust denial. Let me say I am not a supporter nor have ever been a supporter of regimes be it communist, fascist or other extremist regimes that suppress movement, speech, religion and the like. Also, I certainly do not support regimes that send millions off to gulags or concentration camps to be exterminated in the name of the state. I hope I made that crystal clear.
I never said communism was not evil. Communism does not work, never worked, nor will it ever work. History has proved this over and over again. If it did work, the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc and the like would be holding up just fine. The few remaining are not doing well (Cuba, North Korea) either. As Yuri said very accurately was communism and fascist societies have a timebomb built in. the Utopian ideologies are just that, chasing rainbows, and in that process millions suffer/ed and die/d. I do not dispute this point, nor will I ever dispute it. I make these points very clear in my blog all the time.
And you are very, very correct when you say it is easy to look at it in a skewed light when one has not experienced these things first hand. The United States has been staunchly anti-communist and is one of the reasons communism or fascism never took power. That I am grateful for, and I do not downplay for those that have experienced this first hand. If this was the impression I gave, then I apologize. That was not the intent whatsoever.
2. Next:
Because I view it as a bias and stance does not mean it is tainted. I think that’s where this discussion went wrong. I thought I made it clear when I said I have nothing against conservatives or liberals for that matter. I am against totalitarianism, suppression and lack of human rights. I believe that is not a conservative or a liberal issue, it is a bi-partisan issue and should be that way in my view. All should be able to express view be it liberal or conservative, which has been squelched in regimes such as the DPRK. People have a point of view, and Yuri was giving his insights based on said views based on his experiences. I will repeat it again to make it crystal clear; it does not make it bad. That was the impression I got from it. It does not make communism any less of a failed ideology.That is my own view on the matter. Others may disagree with that, and that is fine. With that said, it is not in an attempt to downplay the views or the experiences you, others or Yuri have experienced.
Now, with the better insights of those who have experienced it and/or have a better grasp of the subject to make the issue clearer gives me a better understanding of the context in which it was given. Thank you for that. As I said before, impressions and reality are different things. Communism never took power in the United States because of the Cold War, McCarthyism, and general anti-communist stance. That is a good thing in my own biased view. History and bias are different things (history turns into fact), but too many times bias and history get mixed together. That is why I was trying to watch the video from a purely historical perspective instead of the biased one. Perhaps I got the wrong impression. Maybe Yuri was not trying to give his warning that communist ideology will creep into the U.S. political system based on a conservative bias. I will watch it again and research further. As I said on the post:
3. Lastly:
You can find the answer here.
If you folks wish to talk some more, or ask questions in real time, feel free to contact me via instant messenger:
MSNim: peter.pansy@hotmail.com or Yahoo: albn_again
oops, double post. I apologize for that.
Jack
I for one still don’t understand what you mean by “bias,” and, furthermore, if bias is OK, as in “inevitable,” as you seem to say in your latest postings, why you felt the need to point it out in Bezmenov’s interview.
What exactly is “biased” in that interview? You should be able to spell it out since you found it to be “clear,” wouldn’t you say so?
My impressions do not mean it is inevitable. as stated before, maybe that’s not what Yuri meant in the context of the interview. Impressions are just impressions. I mean my impression of bias came from the Soviet propaganda subversion and how it may sway the left to that direction:
N
Hello Panseluţa, I mean my impression of bias came from the Soviet propaganda subversion and how it may sway the left leaning to that direction (The warning Bezmenov gave):
Now this is where I may have gone wrong, because as emil pointed out earlier, Yuri may have not meant it in that light, and that’s where my impression may have gone wrong. Emil said Bezmenov backed it up with facts. This was pointed out after the initial impression I got from it (perhaps from ignorance on my part). Again, because the impression was that way, does not mean Yuri may have meant it in that way. I saw it as Yuri giving his views based on his own experiences and his political views. My impressions does not make anything inevitable. I was saying if somebody has right-leaning views that is OK. I have nothing against them. That was simply the impression I got.
Now for something else. As you know in America (and thinking about it may have stemmed the impression in the first place) is the modern progressive movement (do not ask me why they call themselves progressives now) is sometimes viewed by some conservatives as socialist and the like. Both sides trade barbs equally, so do not think I am putting conservatives in contempt. Now comes a question for you folks because I am not clear on it and maybe you can help me understand better.
Is the modern progressive movement the subversion Yuri was talking about? Is it more than pundit talking points? Is it something else? As stated before, maybe in the midst of the political discourse maybe I am not seeing the forest for the trees.
Darn it, I hit enter by mistake again. I am so sorry for the mess in the replies. Gosh. I am making such a good impression here.
Hi Jack,
I’m glad that I see you engaged in discussions on this blog! I admire you for the work you are doing on http://dprkforum.com/.
You are asking if the modern progressive movement is the subversion that Yuri talks about.
Me, and most of the people visiting this blog, think that this is the true nature of the pregressive movement ongoing in the West at this time. This is an incredibly long and fascinating topic. For the beginning I will try to restrict myself to the some points…
pressent day progressives (and I don’t have reasons to think that
the early progressive movements were all that different) have their
roots in the Marxist ideologial view of the world. this taking the
form of multiculturalims, cultural relativism, politically
correctness, welfare state, secularism (in it’s anti-Christian,
pro-any-other-religion-ism form).
Take a look at what is happening now in Western Europe, for example:
the governments are pushing the idea that religion,religiosity is a backward way of viewing the world, that religion is the “opium of the people”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people, and the main focus is on Christianity.
This view is pushed on to waken the the very fabric of the Western civilization. Weakening the respect that people have for their traditions and values.
Other progressive points are the total equality between humans, all
races, all sexual orientation holding any opinion, which is a pretty
liberal (in the classical sense, not in the form that Liberalism has
taken in present day USA). This is a view that is perfectly
respectable if it would not be accompanied by positive-discrimination, in which, you, as a part of a certain
minority have more rights than the constituent majority with the only condition that you are part of a minority. This being used to
subvert and waken the fabric of western values,in taking the
focus form the real problems of a society to it’s marginal aspects.
Then there is this welfare state, in which the state is to hold the
power to decide what sort of healthcare anyone should have, the
state becomes the supreme decision maker regarding your education, healthcare, public services, personal values and so on. The power is centralised to a limited number of persons that will then decide about all the aspects of your life, personal and public, taking away the responsibility form the individual, making him dependent to the new God, the state….
And I will stop here for the moment
the correct link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
the link was altered by the coma.
Hello costin, thank you for the insight. I will definitely look into that and research it more. I am not at all familiar with the old eastern bloc countries as with North Korea (which that is iffy as well). To be sure, I did not mean for my own misguided observations to become a flashpoint. Please be aware I am on your side and am for human rights and the end of repressive regimes. That is, tell others all I can about it, because as you know, very little is discussed about North Korea in American discourse anyway.
Hi Jack, we, as Romanians, are somewhat “familiar” if I may say with the kind of Communism that North Korea has. Ceauşescu, the Romanian communist dictator, after a visit to North Korea in 1971 he began to emulate it’s system and in the 80’s Romania became one of the most oppressive nations in Eastern Europe and even the whole world. Even though, from what I can see from your site and other sources, DPRK is even worse than Romania has ever been. And I would not worry, I think it is clear to every one here by now that you have all the best intentions and everybody is open and willing to take advantage and learn as much as possible from these discussions.
Hi costin, yes, I did read about that where he tried to emulate the Chinese and North Korean models, and as a result, turned the country on its head more than it did originally. From what I did read, Nicolae was inexperienced and tried all sorts of things at the expense of lives.
Now to what extent is unclear to me because so little is available on Nicolae.
Update: I have been reading some articles by Ion Mihai Pacepa and read some of his book “Red Horizons” which is in limited preview on Google books.
Interesting read.
There are youtube videos available presenting bezmenov interviews.
Yuri Bezmenov ex KGB Psycological Warfare Techniques. Subversion & Control of Western Society 1/7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8
Thomas, Yuri rocks!