Paul, with all due respect I think that your perspective is somewhat naive and show somewhat of a lack of a comprehensive scope.

Vladimir’s statements, brief as they were, point the way to a more nuanced understanding:
“As for the Cold War, it was never a true war. From the 1917 Russian Revolution, and all the way until 1991, the American government and the intellectual elites that steer the fashionable public opinion in America have always had a complex love/hate relationship with the Soviet regime ”

I’m not saying I agree with him on everything I’ve read – but on a number of posts he’s displayed a knowledge of the history of the Revolution, organized Socialism, and the International that is hard to find. I’m not sure that he would agree with what I’m implying below… but paying attention to his posts is educational.

I honestly recommend doing a bit of research and not rushing to any conclusions, but honestly do research into the history of subversion in the US and Western Europe. What happened is far more nuanced than the simplistic jingoistic “we won the cold war” (factually true, but as Vladimir points out, missing some points) and the “tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist” alternative.

There is some very interesting history that points to third possibilities that I think Dave FH is suggesting.

I highly recommend some of Anthony Sutton’s early works, as well as Norman Dodd’s report on Foundations and Trusts, and the derivative work Foundations Their Power and Influence.

To illustrate the increasingly well documented and complicated nuanced interlocking of some corners of the left and official US policy look at A Cultural Cold War, it is a useful source book. To look at the issue of high level subversion in the UK look at Peter Wright’s “Spycatcher” and the follow-up work on Sir Victor Rothschild (I can’t recall the title, the 5th agent or something to this effect”

Then A. Golitsyn’s two books on KGB subversion published in the mid 80’s and early 90’s.

There are more, some better done and more rigorous, but the above off the top of my head is a decent overview.

Fact: All of these books can be critiqued, as with all books. However it is lazy, and stupid, for people to suggest that views like these have been “debunked’ without putting the serious intellectual effort into really digging into them.

And it is lazy, stupid, and possibly dangerous to your country and community, much less than your own life, to ignore and dismiss the broader possibilities that the very cultural change you decry may have a central organizing principle influencing, if not steering and initiating them.

No long drawn out argument in this comment, just a suggestion that if someone is intellectually honest he will refrain from adopting a “common sense” reflexive “skeptic” mode and actually act like a scientist and examine all available data, all, an its interpretations and weight what seems likely from what seems spurious AFTER really examining the matter.

Most people who make the sort of statements you did have not, in my experience, done this. You could be a suggestion, I certainly cannot speak for you. Either way you may find reading carefully, and considering carefully , these things to be potentially rewarding.

If for nothing else a lot of this stuff beats a Clancy novel..

But, to open randomly in ‘While You Slept’ there is this passage (if I knew how to do html editing in a post… oh well) on p55:

“In the preceding chapter I have listed 29 books that dealt with China and its troubles. Twenty-two of these books were pro-Chinese communist. Seven were anti-Communist. I should think we might well dismiss the whole subject with the following simple statement: Every one of the 22 pro-Communist books, where reviewed, received glowing approval in the literary reviews I have named – that is, in the New York Times, the Herald Tribune, the Nation, the New Republic, and the Saturday Review of Literature. And every one of the anti-Communist books was either roundly condemned or ignored in these reviews.”

I’m going to have to re-read this again it seems.. At any rate, it’s no surprise to me to hear the statements above in 1985, when the views in 1951 in major media outlets were as described by Flynn.

We need to decode psychological abuse, develop naming “systems” to identifity it, and call it out and mock it when it occurs. That freshman orientation at the University of Virginia (google it) was pure psychology practiced on freshmen and explicity white males in order to implement a guilt complex. It was psychologically calibrated and concocted. Every nuance was thought out and the presentation was obviously practiced and rehearsed. Cultural Marxism is the more dangerous enemy than even the old Soviet military arsenal. The true believers in command economies and social systems haven’t abandoned their aims, they have simply mutated their methods and work through different organizations that the old KGB. Their goals are still the same.
——-

“Psychology is being used more and more as a weapon.”

You mean like what Katz and his tribe do?

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/10/the-%E2%80%9Ctough-guise%E2%80%9D-scam/#comment-1007

I suspect that Chandler didn’t choose the title of his book, as is often the case. He does not argue that Russia is “resurgent” in the sense of being a USSR-type military threat. He argues that Russia intends to become a major geopolitical player again, and their strategy is to extinguish capitalism, socialize the USA, separate Europe from America, demoralize the USA with propaganda and disinformation, and reconcile with China.

<i.Cultural Marxism is the more dangerous enemy than even the old Soviet military arsenal. The true believers in command economies and social systems haven’t abandoned their aims, they have simply mutated their methods and work through different organizations that the old KGB. Their goals are still the same.

That is what Chandler argues at length.

We need to decode psychological abuse, develop naming “systems” to identifity it, and call it out and mock it when it occurs. That freshman orientation at the University of Virginia (google it) was pure psychology practiced on freshmen and explicity white males in order to implement a guilt complex. It was psychologically calibrated and concocted. Every nuance was thought out and the presentation was obviously practiced and rehearsed. Cultural Marxism is the more dangerous enemy than even the old Soviet military arsenal. The true believers in command economies and social systems haven’t abandoned their aims, they have simply mutated their methods and work through different organizations that the old KGB. Their goals are still the same.

Yeah, I agree with Paul. The United States obviously won the cold war and russia has still not recovered – never mind the pillaging of russia during the 90s. The west was far better than the soviets when it came to soft power. China is a capitalist country and Russia is broken and pitiful. We won. Any other reading of history seems delusional.

Not every war has real winners. Sometimes only one side loses more badly. It’s silly to claim, for example, that Britain or France came out of the First World War as “winners” in any meaningful sense of the term (though a better case could be made for the U.S.).

As for the Cold War, it was never a true war. From the 1917 Russian Revolution, and all the way until 1991, the American government and the intellectual elites that steer the fashionable public opinion in America have always had a complex love/hate relationship with the Soviet regime — and it’s impossible to deny that the love side of this relationship was always expressed much more clearly and forcefully. On at least two occasions (in 1921 and during WW2), the U.S. aid was a crucial factor in the very survival of the USSR, and the distances between the social networks of the Soviet Communist Party and the American liberal political and intellectual elite were never more than one or two degrees of separation. (Remember, for example, Ted Kennedy’s secret scheming with Andropov in 1983.) On the other hand, every anti-Communist effort undertaken by the U.S., whether military or diplomatic, was half-hearted and viciously denounced and opposed by the fashionable liberal opinion at home. Just look at, say, the Iran-Contra affair — socialist dictators were always aided openly and proudly, but aid to anti-Communist resistance was a matter of shame and secrecy.

Thus, it’s fundamentally wrong to look at the Soviet influence in America as a purely alien ideological corruption coming from the outside. The Soviet experiment was always the pet cause of the American progressives, for which they had great sympathy from day one. Just remember John Reed or Lincoln Steffens (“I have been over into the future, and it works!”). Of course, later there was a lot of positive feedback as the Soviets realized that they could strengthen their position further by returning some help to the U.S. progressives, especially as the American Right started showing some signs of life again after WW2. Tailgunner Joe was, if anything, too moderate and complacent, may God rest his soul. (And may his name once be cleared of all the smear that’s been heaped onto him.)

Saving the West by Killing the West

I agree. Things may have looked different in 1985, but Yuri Bezmenov was wrong.