American Conspiracy: Why Does the World Hate Us? - Is The Hate Planned or Earned?

Originally posted by StellarX

But the fact is that the Bolshevik party still only received around 25% of the vote so they did not in fact support him?

Of course, but once again, there was no mandate. I agree that Lenin ended any chance of forming a coalition government with his actions. I am no admirer of Lenin and his tactics but to receive one quarter of the citizens support is a substantial number and the weight this support carries is substantial regardless.

What lack of morality? Don't tell me you are one of those types that have a problem with 'human nature'?

Certainly not. It is what it is.

Opportunism is desperation by another name and it's not a trait of the common man when left to his own devices and planning.

I disagree with this assessment. Opportunism is just that, taking advantage of a situation, whether it adversely effects other parties is a different matter all together. I have seen it in business and personal interactions with many people I have encountered.

Plenty of dailies and workers papers were still getting published all over the US and it's taken most of the rest of the century for the corporations to crack down and gain control of the various media forms. The New York times and other papers were talking about the red threat while they were still fighting for control of Russia and it truly is fascinating how quickly the corporate media of the day attempted to make a enemy of SU.

I am not very surprised. People and to a larger extent, corporations, have agendas and are likely to employ means to further them. That the Times was anti-communist is not at all shocking, they were a decidely conservative paper and the course taken by the Bolshiveks was to them most undesireable.

I should not ask questions when i am not sure of a response but i like to make sure that the other party has done some of the required reading or are willing to catch up.

Not a problem.

Why did the Bolsheviks had to resort to such means when they represented what the majority really wanted?

The second highest yes but then that's not what the people want! 25% ( if you believe it generally accurate as i do) is no majority and certainly no basis to start a civil war on or to outlaw the Democratic machinery that just showed you that even your lies were not representative of what the people wanted.

It is obvious from the vote total that they did not trully represent the majority, and I agree that it is no basis to incite cival war. However, the Bolshivek power base was concentrated in the urban and industrial centers. These were readily visible and accessable to Lenin and the party leaders. It was his Praetorian Guard so to speak, he usurped with the material that was close at hand.

As i see it the Bolsheviks had nothing but fanaticism on their side and they really had to resort to the measures they took to gain their position. As the vast majority of the tyrants before them( him) they were rejected and had to use terrorism and violence to gain control.

There was fanatisism on several fronts at that time. There were several instances were hundreds of thousands protested for their respective causes. Once again I will not dispute Lenin's modes or moethods as anything but detestable.

Right and as soon sa the Bolsheviks realised that they were not going to gain credibility or power by continuing along representative lines ( checking what the people wanted) they stopped the process and did what they had to to gain control. Does not sound like people with wide support to me.

I do not want to quibble with regarding a vote tally on which we already have a concordance however it is my opinion that the Bolshivek's support can be construde as wide in the context of the election in which there was no mandate.

Actually the US people do not comparatively give much ( and i see no sense in talking about shear volume given more people) and while US corporations take back far more than the US citizens could ever give or the US government 'aid' , with tomes of corporate specifications attached, could ever fix. If you go look at the UN's stance ( not always to be believed) and what international humanitarian agencies says it's quite clear that the US state as entity is deriviving massively far greater profit from Africa and Asia than it's citizens is returning in anything that could be called aid. The numbers and informtion is readily available and i understand why you have never seen reason to give it a closer look. We all want to believe our governments does what we ask of them but that is rarely the case and certainly not when it comes to charity.

Actually the United States citizens do give much, and the equvicacy that there are more people is a thin arguement at best. There being only 300 million people living in the United States in comparison to the remaining global population of 5.7 billion how is this 'more people'?

The citizens of the United States gave $245 billion in doantions out of a total of $295 billion total in the United States. Donations by private citizens was five times the corporate total. Donations by citizens has been trending upward for the past fifty years and this figure does not take into condsideration donations of time or effort on behalf of a charity.

Nearly $100 billion of donated money went overseas to help the world's underprivledged. You may or may not have a personal disdain for United States corporations but your view point does nothing to diminish the tremendous genorousity of the American people. Direct me, if you can, to figures that show any nation approaching the amounts that United States citizens donate.

I will omit governmental aid as I only mentioned in my previous post citizen aid depsite the fact that the United States goverment aid is citizens tax money as well.

Foreign interventions is typically and historically undertaken to benefit the wealthy/ruling ( almost always the same people) classes of one nation and it frequently destroys the hegemony of the intervening nation as the war creates even greater divides between those poor serfs doing the fighting and the landed lords gaining the benefits.

Who said that all hedgemonic activity invloves military confrontations? There are many ways to project hedgemony in a region without resorting to military force and these can be quite successful.

Sure they had some submarines and aircraft/equipment that were long past prime effectiveness but their total war doctrine was always aimed at preserving every bit of potential for as long as possible even if it was not the most efficient expenditure of resources.

To me this statement captures the quintescence of Soviet Union and to a degree, communist, rational. Employ outdated, outmoded, ineffective and underserviced equipment to mantain a numerical superiority.

There is no evidence from primary sources for this statement and while it was clear that the USSR were going to have to reform certain sectors and that the economy was stagnating there were no conslusive , and certainly not obvious, signs that the USSR were going to collapse and it was in 1989-1990 as great a surprise to the CIA/DIA/NIA as to most casual observers. There were just no good indicators that the USSR would collapse so quikcly or with so little bloodletting and suppression.

Lenin himself knew from the onset Soviet Communism was almost reliant on communism taking hold in Western Europe. The Soviet Unions collapse was becoming apparent in 1985. A stagnant economy a growing political discontent was at this time already leading to crititisism of the Gorbachev government.

Senator Moynihan gave dissertations and authored many papers on his prediction of the Soviet Unions 1980's collapse. Social dissident Andrei Amalrik wondered if it would survivie until 1984....this was in in 1970. There are many more but my final example at this time is Ronald Reagan's address of British Parliment in 1982. I feel he is a 'primary' enough source for me.

Since i don't even know which of my hundreds of posts on this issue would best reflect how wrong you are i will just disagree and state that the USSR were leading in many important areas and were implementing the technologies faster.

I never postulated that the Soviet Union did not have certain advantages in the military sphere. I only stated that overall United States technology was superior. I would be willing to debate this with you further if you can direct me to the proper forum.

How could the SDI upset the Kremlin when they allready had their own fully implemented and operational SDI? Sure they were feigning horror and using their paid agents in the US to undermine Reagan's initiave but it was from a position of strength and to make the US seem like the agressor state thus forcing them to the disarmament tables.

Are you refering to the Fon-2? This system was deemed impractical to defeat a United States first strike. Or did you mean the IS-MU which was launched untested? I honestly feel the United States program was never going to make it into production and was used a political tool to leverage the Soviet Union to relinquish part of its massive ICBM force at the bargaining table.

Please cite some references for this claim as i can not remember ever seeing anyone claim such a thing.

Here is a good article encompassing what I stated. If you need further articles I would be happy to provide them.

Japanese investments and United States growth

Do i really need to get all conspiratorial given the Brest-Litovsk treaty and the fact that the Socialist revolutionary party ( the true organizers of the original DEMOCRATIC revolution) joined the fight after their political activities were outlawed?

In this regard no. The Treaty had severely unfavorable terms for Russia to accept and in my opinion garunteed a second war as being inevitable. The Socialists can not be faulted for confronting the Bolshiveks militarily as they were the majority vote receivers in prior election. This treaty however was not negotiated in any way by the United States.

Why did the Bolshevik minority win and why , with so many foreign powers intervening, could the majority not retain power?

If I were to make an educated guess it would be that the Bolshiveks controlled the industrial centers which were the foundations of their public support. Depsite the Socialists receiving a larger percentage in the election their powerbase was concentrated in the rural areas. Conversely the Bolshiveks dominated the city centers which would lead me to believe that equipping and supplying their soldiers would be a far easier task then their enemies would face.

Who did Japan, Czechoslovakia, Greece, the United States, Canada, Serbia, Romania, UK, France really support and if so how did that side 'lose'. Is that not on the face of if a good enough reason to lend credence to all the books and discussions that have suggested , and in my opinion validated the notion, that the Bolshevik counter-revolution ( as they clearly espoused and worked towards counter revolutionary goals) were in fact sponsored into power from the outside?

Are you implying that because the United States supported the anti-communist White Army, who suffered defeat against the Red Army, means that the United States in reality desired a Bolshivek victory? If so I have a difficult time accepting that as a valid arguement.

I have not so far put together what i consider sufficient online sources/information to 'prove' what i believe from all my reading. I am not even sure that i have to prove who were in fact responsible but maybe i will take a stab at it if you wish to insist that the Russian people 'got what they wanted' when that is clearly not bourne out by what is normally considered reputable sources.

The only thing I would like you to provide me with is any type of evidence that the United States unduly influenced the Russian Revolution in favor of the Bolshiveks.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Of course, but once again, there was no mandate. I agree that Lenin ended any chance of forming a coalition government with his actions. I am no admirer of Lenin and his tactics but to receive one quarter of the citizens support is a substantial number and the weight this support carries is substantial regardless.

I know you want to disagree and make the Russian people 'deserving' of what they got but as you seem to know they majority never supported it and not even that 25% would have supported the steps the Bolshevik counter-revolutionaries eventually took. Fact is the majority never supports such violence and that's why people who want to act in such ways have to grab power and lie to the electorate beforehand.

Certainly not. It is what it is.

And i have found that people with a formal history education tends to have very low opinions of humans and seem to think human nature leads to the problems our history books reflects.

I disagree with this assessment. Opportunism is just that, taking advantage of a situation, whether it adversely effects other parties is a different matter all together. I have seen it in business and personal interactions with many people I have encountered.

And you would given the way we have been educated to think and believe in our various capitalist societies. To consider what we do in our various capitalist countries to be 'natural' is to presume that capitalism is not a system set up to favour the opportunistic by giving them the protection of the state to protect their ill gotten goods. The opportunism of the common man tends to have very real consequences in systems where people are considered equal but that's not the aim in class orientated capitalist systems.

I am not very surprised. People and to a larger extent, corporations, have agendas and are likely to employ means to further them.

In my opinion only people with great volumes of power and resources have agenda's with the rest of us being stuck with 'aims'. Corporations and the like have agenda's and the type of access to centralized power that inspires the creation of 'agenda's' that could not otherwise be considered.

That the Times was anti-communist is not at all shocking, they were a decidely conservative paper and the course taken by the Bolshiveks was to them most undesireable.

But why was 'The Times' anti communist and what did they mean by communism when they later supported fascism in Spain, Germany and Italy?

It is obvious from the vote total that they did not trully represent the majority, and I agree that it is no basis to incite cival war. However, the Bolshivek power base was concentrated in the urban and industrial centers. These were readily visible and accessable to Lenin and the party leaders. It was his Praetorian Guard so to speak, he usurped with the material that was close at hand.

Usurped being the appropriate word in this instance as was proven when the social revolutionaries still got a obvious majority even after the Bolshevik's showed that they were willing to resort to violence to achieve their aims.

There was fanatisism on several fronts at that time. There were several instances were hundreds of thousands protested for their respective causes. Once again I will not dispute Lenin's modes or moethods as anything but detestable.

There was fanaticism on both sides but i am not the 'objective' type that refuses to acknowledge who were defending human rights and democracy against state socialism( Bolshevism) and it's inherent evils. In my opinion we should not lose sight of the fact that the counter revolutionaries usurped the machinery of the previous monarchy and then employed it to propagandize those who did not know what was going on and fight and kill those who did and picked the side of humanity.

do not want to quibble with regarding a vote tally on which we already have a concordance however it is my opinion that the Bolshivek's support can be construde as wide in the context of the election in which there was no mandate.

But you ARE quibbling! Bolshevik support came mainly from representatives who did not represent what their people wanted ( the people had just revolted against centralized hereditary control) and had to be lied to, misdirected, bought or terrorized into constituting even that 25% of 'support'. Why do you insist arguing that even that 25% represents the true wishes of the people? Why do you still hold on the notion that 25% of Russians would have , given proper information channels, or did support Bolshivism over their local soviets?

Actually the United States citizens do give much, and the equvicacy that there are more people is a thin arguement at best.

Thin it might be but is it or isn't it true? More importantly how much of that is really 'aid' to people in actual need?

There being only 300 million people living in the United States in comparison to the remaining global population of 5.7 billion how is this 'more people'?

Comparatively smaller European nations give more in foreign aid than the US does and normally, as i understand, with fewer strings attached.

The citizens of the United States gave $245 billion in doantions out of a total of $295 billion total in the United States.

To mostly American institutions so why should we care about that?

Donations by private citizens was five times the corporate total. Donations by citizens has been trending upward for the past fifty years and this figure does not take into condsideration donations of time or effort on behalf of a charity.

Americans have much to feel guilty about ( decades of 'their', well not really, government terrorizing the third world ) so it's surprising that they give so little while their taxes are generously used to build submarines and cruise missiles which are sometimes employed to blow up third world pharmaceutical plants of , as in Yugoslavia and Iraq, the water and electricity infrastructure.

Nearly $100 billion of donated money went overseas to help the world's underprivledged.

Source please and if that is the case why aren't everyone doing much better? Do you realise that that means around 100 USD for a billion people who so far seems to be surviving on less than a dollar a day?

You may or may not have a personal disdain for United States corporations but your view point does nothing to diminish the tremendous genorousity of the American people.

Personal disdain of the US national security state and their consistently inhuman foreign policy decisions.

Direct me, if you can, to figures that show any nation approaching the amounts that United States citizens donate.

To whom do they donate?

I will omit governmental aid as I only mentioned in my previous post citizen aid depsite the fact that the United States goverment aid is citizens tax money as well.

US government 'aid' does more than negate any good American citizens might have tried to do.

Who said that all hedgemonic activity invloves military confrontations? There are many ways to project hedgemony in a region without resorting to military force and these can be quite successful.

They can work very effectively if they are not understood but unless the foreign players are completely ignorant or working for you there must always be the threat of actual violence. Hegemonic , economic, activity is very unlikely to succeed without that power lacking the ability to resort to the use of arms and i think the historic record makes it clear that hegemony's are normally those who can best mobilize their industrial/economic/population bases to subvert others. I am sure there are 'empires'/hegemony's that were formed in common defense but again that requires a well organized external hegemony.

To me this statement captures the quintescence of Soviet Union and to a degree, communist, rational. Employ outdated, outmoded, ineffective and underserviced equipment to mantain a numerical superiority.

To me your response captures the arrogance of appeals to 'superiority' in equipment and 'training' when history does show that superior training or equipment is no guarantee in the face of inferior ( but by how much and under what conditions?) equipment to a a larger number of persons with less training. The Russians proved conclusively in the second world war that German troops were better trained but that even the best trained man can not walk faster than a 'inferior' tank or hide from 'inferior' artillery shells. You may have the best men in the world but if they are not enough to protect what must be 'inferior' badly equipped troops is all that will be required against them.

Lenin himself knew from the onset Soviet Communism was almost reliant on communism taking hold in Western Europe.

Lenin knew that people everywhere would quickly see that it was not the system for them and would resist to the best of their abilities. Communism was 'reliant' on taking hold of western Europe , by force as it did in Russia, as Communism was not going to spread by itself.

The Soviet Unions collapse was becoming apparent in 1985.

Not according to the CIA or anyone who were supposed to be able to tell...

A stagnant economy a growing political discontent was at this time already leading to crititisism of the Gorbachev government.

The US economy was stagnating as well and the political discontent resulted in less than half of people actually voting and massive criticism of the Reagan government! Obviously the US did not collapse and there was about as much reason for the USSR to collapse.

Continued

[edit on 22-11-2007 by StellarX]

Senator Moynihan gave dissertations and authored many papers on his prediction of the Soviet Unions 1980's collapse.

So he knew how to read books and particularly the work of Anatoliy Golitsyn? Smart guy and he certainly knew how to both read data and reach conclusions that he had the guts to make known! He was spot on when he said the new drug laws would 'cause' a crime wave in the US leading to hundreds of thousands of 'criminals'.

reformed-theology.org...

www.sierratimes.com...

www.thefinalphase.com...

www.markriebling.com...

www.stoptheftaa.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

Social dissident Andrei Amalrik wondered if it would survivie until 1984....this was in in 1970.

Social dissidents can never see how oppressive systems are propagated and that's why some of them are rather useless when it comes to changing the world for the better. If i had a penny for every claim dissidents claim that 'things would get better' and 'how could it go on this way' i would be fabously wealthy.

There are many more but my final example at this time is Ronald Reagan's address of British Parliment in 1982. I feel he is a 'primary' enough source for me.

Ronald Reagan also believed in UFO's ( presumably Russian one's as he wanted 'star wars' trough the SDI) and 'trickle down' economics so citing him as authority on something as complex as the possibility or certainty of social/economic revolutions abroad is in my opinion absurd. I am obviously not very objective when it comes to Ronald Reagan but i don't think he wanted SDI and the 'new army', that would eventually be used in the war crime that was the first gulf war, with the aim of crushing tin pot dictators that were in fact under American control .As it was the US almost failed to keep Hussein in Kuwait long enough to get their 'liberation' going! To suggest that such a army was required to fight third world nations is ludicrous and to presume and while i would not put it past Ronald and his corporate friends to create foreign enemies from whole cloth ( Saddam Hussein in 1990) they did not have to in the 80's as it's widely admitted that the USSR were superior in conventional forces but not so widely known that they were miles ahead on the strategic front as well.

I never postulated that the Soviet Union did not have certain advantages in the military sphere.I only stated that overall United States technology was superior.

Well it was in many instances but rarely implemented in the ways , when at all, that would in my opinion have resulted in strategic superiority.

I would be willing to debate this with you further if you can direct me to the proper forum.

I have posted extensively on this issue in many dozens of threads :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not a complete list but i think it might serve to show that the ideas and claims i am making did not originate with me and do in fact come from what are otherwise considered 'reputable authorities'.

Are you refering to the Fon-2? This system was deemed impractical to defeat a United States first strike.

And that's why they had lasers, probably some particle beam weaponry and a few thousand dual use SAM/ABM missiles just to be on the safe side.

Or did you mean the IS-MU which was launched untested?

That's not what i meant, no.

I honestly feel the United States program was never going to make it into production and was used a political tool to leverage the Soviet Union to relinquish part of its massive ICBM force at the bargaining table.

The USSR did not relinquish at the negotiation table what they did not otherwise wish to replace or get rid of. The USSR's ICBM's were at that stage far more numerous with more warheads and three or four times as much throw weight and mega tonnage. The fact that the Silo's and mobile missiles were almost all re loadable is rarely mentioned and for good reason given what that fact entails.

Here is a good article encompassing what I stated. If you need further articles I would be happy to provide them.
Japanese investments and United States growth

The article does not address the fact that the US federal debt is growing faster than the economy meaning that the economy is NOT in fact growing with Japanese investment just being helpful towards ensuring that the entire US debt crisis does not become more obvious than it already is.

In this regard no. The Treaty had severely unfavorable terms for Russia to accept and in my opinion garunteed a second war as being inevitable.

How could it make a second war inevitable when the rise of Germany was by no means inevitable? Sure the treaty had severe implications for Russian hegemony on the region so why did they accept it at all? Maybe because they could not fight both the central powers AND the Russian people? How could people who ostensible had the best interest of Russian in mind ever sign such a treaty when the first world war was coming to a close with or without Russia's participation? Who were these people who sign away so much Russian land?

The Socialists can not be faulted for confronting the Bolshiveks militarily as they were the majority vote receivers in prior election. This treaty however was not negotiated in any way by the United States.

"In all, the treaty took away a third of Russia's population, half of her industry and nine-tenths of her coal mines." Would any nationalist sign such a treaty and why didn't they before?

If I were to make an educated guess it would be that the Bolshiveks controlled the industrial centers which were the foundations of their public support.

What public support, they seized Petrograd and Moscow ( and where else did they have support?) , and as i just mentioned they signed away half of their industrial centers to the central powers!

Depsite the Socialists receiving a larger percentage in the election their powerbase was concentrated in the rural areas. Conversely the Bolshiveks dominated the city centers which would lead me to believe that equipping and supplying their soldiers would be a far easier task then their enemies would face.

Are you implying that because the United States supported the anti-communist White Army, who suffered defeat against the Red Army, means that the United States in reality desired a Bolshivek victory? If so I have a difficult time accepting that as a valid arguement.

What i am saying is that the west did not support the 'white' Russians but instead supported the Bolshevik 'government' in their attempts to keep Russia in the war. That is obviously the official excuse used for the various governments interventions but it hardly explains the financial backing of the Bolshevik movement itself. As the following source would indicate the western presence did much to gain support for the Bolshevik unification of Russia ( they could now claim to be fighting the imperialist) while it contributed very little if anything to fighting the outnumbered 'red' forces. I am certainly not of the opinion that the west could not have crushed the 'revolution' ( really counter revolution) like it did so many others in the previous century.

www.gmu.edu...

Continued

I have not so far put together what i consider sufficient online sources/information to 'prove' what i believe from all my reading. I am not even sure that i have to prove who were in fact responsible but maybe i will take a stab at it if you wish to insist that the Russian people 'got what they wanted' when that is clearly not borne out by what is normally considered reputable sources.

The only thing I would like you to provide me with is any type of evidence that the United States unduly influenced the Russian Revolution in favor of the Bolshiveks.

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

www.guardian.co.uk...

But maybe that page contains enough interesting quotes to enable a easy dismissal of this one. If i must i think i can show that the Rockefeller interests, and their puppet Wilson, were the main funders of the revolution and that they gained the most by it.

I think i did enough by showing how the western intervention was entirely self interested and on the whole did more for the Bolshevik cause than for the revolutionary one.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

I know you want to disagree and make the Russian people 'deserving' of what they got but as you seem to know they majority never supported it and not even that 25% would have supported the steps the Bolshevik counter-revolutionaries eventually took. Fact is the majority never supports such violence and that's why people who want to act in such ways have to grab power and lie to the electorate beforehand.

The agitation for change occured and whether or not the eventual outcome was known or not, to me, is irealevant, change was desired and change was implemented. Despite the Bolsheviks receiving 25% of the vote the majority of the population wanted change. The 40% that backed the Socialists was still not a country wide mandate and while it does represent a majority it falls short of speaking for the majority of the Russian people. It is obvious that none of the political parties of the time appealed to enough of the constituents to be able to claim they spoke for the Russian people as a whole.

To say that the Bolshiveks would not have supported their leaders actions if known ahead of time is something that I can not address as I do not have any insight into what they were thinking.

And i have found that people with a formal history education tends to have very low opinions of humans and seem to think human nature leads to the problems our history books reflects.

I am flattered that you think I have a formal history education but sadly I do not. I am only a person that enjoys exploring it and am for the most part self taught in this regard. My low or high opinion of my fellow man is soley based on the situation and their actions and not on anyone elses teachings.

And you would given the way we have been educated to think and believe in our various capitalist societies. To consider what we do in our various capitalist countries to be 'natural' is to presume that capitalism is not a system set up to favour the opportunistic by giving them the protection of the state to protect their ill gotten goods. The opportunism of the common man tends to have very real consequences in systems where people are considered equal but that's not the aim in class orientated capitalist systems.

That protection is available to all and the opportunity is as well. Capitalism may not be perfect but through my own hard work I have achieved much and feel that this avenue is open to all who apply the same principal. I personally want nothing handed to me and be beholden to anyone.

In my opinion only people with great volumes of power and resources have agenda's with the rest of us being stuck with 'aims'.

Corporations and the like have agenda's and the type of access to centralized power that inspires the creation of 'agenda's' that could not otherwise be considered.

In my opinion everyone has an agenda and affects in in their own personal sphere of influence.

But why was 'The Times' anti communist and what did they mean by communism when they later supported fascism in Spain, Germany and Italy?

The Times was Anti-Communist because their publishers had that view point. The Times is now decidely Liberal as their publishers are now of that view point. All pulishers promote, in some regard, the platforms they espouse.

Usurped being the appropriate word in this instance as was proven when the social revolutionaries still got a obvious majority even after the Bolshevik's showed that they were willing to resort to violence to achieve their aims.

In a room full of one hundred people if all voted for a different system exept for two you would still have a majority but no mandate.

There was fanaticism on both sides but i am not the 'objective' type that refuses to acknowledge who were defending human rights and democracy against state socialism( Bolshevism) and it's inherent evils. In my opinion we should not lose sight of the fact that the counter revolutionaries usurped the machinery of the previous monarchy and then employed it to propagandize those who did not know what was going on and fight and kill those who did and picked the side of humanity.

The Social-Democrats also wanted state Socialism, albiet not to the same degree as the Soviets. While I am aware of the counter-revolutianaries participation in the Tzar's overthrow they were aided by the Socialists in this endeavor and by such, are both equally culpable for the results.

But you ARE quibbling! Bolshevik support came mainly from representatives who did not represent what their people wanted ( the people had just revolted against centralized hereditary control) and had to be lied to, misdirected, bought or terrorized into constituting even that 25% of 'support'. Why do you insist arguing that even that 25% represents the true wishes of the people? Why do you still hold on the notion that 25% of Russians would have , given proper information channels, or did support Bolshivism over their local soviets?

I am not quite sure how you can say that all of the followers of Lenin did so against their will or were blind to Bolshivek ambitions. I can not make any assumptions of their personal desicion process and what prompted them to side with Lenin, they supported the Party, so I must assume they supported its actions.

Thin it might be but is it or isn't it true? More importantly how much of that is really 'aid' to people in actual need?

I would hope all of it. Whether or not it actually reaches the intended recipient does not diminish the act itself.

Comparatively smaller European nations give more in foreign aid than the US does and normally, as i understand, with fewer strings attached.

My initial comment addressed chairtable donations, not United States government foreign aid, these are two very distinct contributions. The other nations give more foriegn by a factor of Gross National Product but the raw dollar total for the United States is substantially higher.

To mostly American institutions so why should we care about that?

I will address this below.

Americans have much to feel guilty about ( decades of 'their', well not really, government terrorizing the third world ) so it's surprising that they give so little while their taxes are generously used to build submarines and cruise missiles which are sometimes employed to blow up third world pharmaceutical plants of , as in Yugoslavia and Iraq, the water and electricity infrastructure.

I can not speak for my fellow Americans so I do not see how you have a particular insight into this. I personally give and donate my time because it is spiritually rewarding for me; perhaps they feel that way as well? I have never given out of guilt.

Since the 1960's defense spending has plummeted from a high of 50% to the current 10%, it is not nearly as 'generous' as it once was.

Source please and if that is the case why aren't everyone doing much better? Do you realise that that means around 100 USD for a billion people who so far seems to be surviving on less than a dollar a day?

U.S. Chartiable Donations

I do realize that, hopefully it helps them in some small way.

Personal disdain of the US national security state and their consistently inhuman foreign policy decisions.

So is it safe to assume that you recognize the genorousity of the United States citizens.

To whom do they donate?

The world's needy.

US government 'aid' does more than negate any good American citizens might have tried to do.

I disagree.

They can work very effectively if they are not understood but unless the foreign players are completely ignorant or working for you there must always be the threat of actual violence. Hegemonic , economic, activity is very unlikely to succeed without that power lacking the ability to resort to the use of arms and i think the historic record makes it clear that hegemony's are normally those who can best mobilize their industrial/economic/population bases to subvert others. I am sure there are 'empires'/hegemony's that were formed in common defense but again that requires a well organized external hegemony.

My point was that it does not need to be exerted it may be projected with equal effectivness. Two Roman Legion situated in a neighboring province or a United States Super-Carrier of the coast can exert hedgemonic influence without resorting to militaristic confrontation.

To me your response captures the arrogance of appeals to 'superiority' in equipment and 'training' when history does show that superior training or equipment is no guarantee in the face of inferior ( but by how much and under what conditions?) equipment to a a larger number of persons with less training. The Russians proved conclusively in the second world war that German troops were better trained but that even the best trained man can not walk faster than a 'inferior' tank or hide from 'inferior' artillery shells. You may have the best men in the world but if they are not enough to protect what must be 'inferior' badly equipped troops is all that will be required against them.

I personally would rather take my chances on the better trained and equipped side than the numerically superior side. I can quote numerous historical instances were the better trained and equipped army triuphed over a far larger counterpart with numerical superiority. Poor tactics or command desicions have nothing to do with equipment or training.

Lenin knew that people everywhere would quickly see that it was not the system for them and would resist to the best of their abilities. Communism was 'reliant' on taking hold of western Europe , by force as it did in Russia, as Communism was not going to spread by itself.

Once again I can not comment on what people personally thought about something, I can only go by historical and contemporaneous anecdotes. From the mid-1800's Communisim was growing in popularity, its possibly taking hold in other countries was not at all reliant soley on force but social displeasure as well.

Not according to the CIA or anyone who were supposed to be able to tell...

The CIA in notoriously bad at predicting anything.

The US economy was stagnating as well and the political discontent resulted in less than half of people actually voting and massive criticism of the Reagan government! Obviously the US did not collapse and there was about as much reason for the USSR to collapse.

In the mid-1980's the United States was experiencing historically unprecedented growth and the economy was anything but stagnant. Ronald Reagan won, in his re-election bid-the largest electoral vote margin in United States history. Are you perhaps refering to a different time frame as you gave no date? Sadly less than half the voting-age-population votes in any election so this point is not wholly releavent.

So he knew how to read books and particularly the work of Anatoliy Golitsyn? Smart guy and he certainly knew how to both read data and reach conclusions that he had the guts to make known! He was spot on when he said the new drug laws would 'cause' a crime wave in the US leading to hundreds of thousands of 'criminals'.

I can not quite tell if you are being complimentary or sarcastic.

Although I did not agree with the esteemed Senator on every issue I think he was a very well respected and brilliant politician who served his constituency to the best of his ability. My opinion is shared by many.

Social dissidents can never see how oppressive systems are propagated and that's why some of them are rather useless when it comes to changing the world for the better. If i had a penny for every claim dissidents claim that 'things would get better' and 'how could it go on this way' i would be fabously wealthy.

Are you willing to share that wealth?

This one happened to be correct and while I agree that they are wrong quite often their view points should also be taken into account.

Ronald Reagan also believed in UFO's ( presumably Russian one's as he wanted 'star wars' trough the SDI) and 'trickle down' economics so citing him as authority on something as complex as the possibility or certainty of social/economic revolutions abroad is in my opinion absurd.

Comparing UFOs to economic reform in my opinion is absurd. To me one is tangible and is still viable and the other is what certain ATS forums are for.

I am obviously not very objective when it comes to Ronald Reagan

Really?

but i don't think he wanted SDI and the 'new army', that would eventually be used in the war crime that was the first gulf war,

Rhetoric and sophistry.

with the aim of crushing tin pot dictators that were in fact under American control .As it was the US almost failed to keep Hussein in Kuwait long enough to get their 'liberation' going! To suggest that such a army was required to fight third world nations is ludicrous and to presume and while i would not put it past Ronald and his corporate friends to create foreign enemies from whole cloth ( Saddam Hussein in 1990)

Ronald Reagan left office in January of 1989, the first Gulf War began in 1991. Is any of this releavent or is it all diatribe?

they did not have to in the 80's as it's widely admitted that the USSR were superior in conventional forces but not so widely known that they were miles ahead on the strategic front as well.

Is this the same underfunded strategic force we spoke of earlier?

Well it was in many instances but rarely implemented in the ways , when at all, that would in my opinion have resulted in strategic superiority.

Since the United States of America and the Soviet Union never actually engaged in a direct confrontation it is all speculative as to the result of a non thermo-nuclear encounter. The actions were all by proxy and the results are hard to clearly judge as many of the Soviet proxies were poorly trained and tactically inferior to the United States proxies.

The USSR did not relinquish at the negotiation table what they did not otherwise wish to replace or get rid of. The USSR's ICBM's were at that stage far more numerous with more warheads and three or four times as much throw weight and mega tonnage. The fact that the Silo's and mobile missiles were almost all re loadable is rarely mentioned and for good reason given what that fact entails.

I can not assert why they did relinquish a portion of their nuclear arsenal only speculate. Perhaps the maintainence of older obsolecent weapons were deemed sacrificable.

As to the reloading capablities and payload does it really matter after the first exchange? I think the end result would be the same.

The article does not address the fact that the US federal debt is growing faster than the economy meaning that the economy is NOT in fact growing with Japanese investment just being helpful towards ensuring that the entire US debt crisis does not become more obvious than it already is.

Nor was it meant to, it was to address you question regarding Japanese investment into the United States coinciding with the stock market crash of 1987.

The United States debt is currently retreating at a steady pace and will approach an equalibrium sooner than expected if current trends continue.

How could it make a second war inevitable when the rise of Germany was by no means inevitable?

I disagree and feel the rise of a resurgent Germany was also inevitable. The crushing debt structure and unfavorable parameters made national recovery nearly impossible on many levels.

Sure the treaty had severe implications for Russian hegemony on the region so why did they accept it at all?

It was a very poor desicion in my opinion.

Maybe because they could not fight both the central powers AND the Russian people?

A very real reason.

How could people who ostensible had the best interest of Russian in mind ever sign such a treaty when the first world war was coming to a close with or without Russia's participation?

I specualate at that point they only had self preservation on their collective agenda.

Who were these people who sign away so much Russian land?

They were very poor leaders in my opinion.

"In all, the treaty took away a third of Russia's population, half of her industry and nine-tenths of her coal mines." Would any nationalist sign such a treaty and why didn't they before?

Do you have any fact to back your speculation that they treaty signers were influenced by the United States?

What public support, they seized Petrograd and Moscow ( and where else did they have support?) , and as i just mentioned they signed away half of their industrial centers to the central powers!

They did have public support, as we established earlier it was not a majority but it was support none the less.

As I have admitted the treaty was a very unfavorable one for them to sign. Perhaps it was signed with an eye towards consolodating power within the remainder of the country.

What i am saying is that the west did not support the 'white' Russians but instead supported the Bolshevik 'government' in their attempts to keep Russia in the war. That is obviously the official excuse used for the various governments interventions but it hardly explains the financial backing of the Bolshevik movement itself. As the following source would indicate the western presence did much to gain support for the Bolshevik unification of Russia ( they could now claim to be fighting the imperialist) while it contributed very little if anything to fighting the outnumbered 'red' forces. I am certainly not of the opinion that the west could not have crushed the 'revolution' ( really counter revolution) like it did so many others in the previous century.

Although the link provided shows Western intervention in Europe it only indicates that American troops were not permitted to engage and were ordered to stay in port. The most I can garner is that they were guilty of abandoning the Whites, not what one would expect from a friend but not directly aiding the Bolshiveks with material or financial support as I feel you intimated earlier.

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

www.guardian.co.uk...

But maybe that page contains enough interesting quotes to enable a easy dismissal of this one.

I am aware of Emma Goldman and her views. She, however, was not a member of the United States government and her influence was countered by many he felt she was too radical and did not prescribe to her Zionist views.

If i must i think i can show that the Rockefeller interests, and their puppet Wilson, were the main funders of the revolution and that they gained the most by it.

Please do.

I think i did enough by showing how the western intervention was entirely self interested and on the whole did more for the Bolshevik cause than for the revolutionary one.

I agree with you, I think we established my opinion on self interest and their relations to governments previously. However, any benefit the Bolshiveks received was indirect in regards to United States participation, or lack there of and I feel you have yet to prove to me otherwise.

Stellar,

I wanted to further clarify a point I made about Germany in comparison to Russia in regards their mutual resurgence. I feel the restrictive treaties they both signed following World War I could only lead to popular discontent and a call for radical revolution. Especially in Germany's instance the massive debt imposed by the Allies could have never been payed off and can be directly tied to world wide economic collapses of that time.

Sorry I could not inlcude this in my post above, it apparently is to large for me to edit after the fact.

reply to post by Inquisitor Leet


Very good point!!!!!!!!!! It really made me think.