< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: International Communist Conspiracy


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Monday, March 28, 2005

International Communist Conspiracy

I've been having a little argument with 'OHenry' on Hides blog here. As evidence that the USA was a rapacious capitalist fascist maurading (etc) rogue state, OHenry cited a book called “Rogue State: A guide to the world’s only superpower", by William Blum.

Heres a link to some parts of the book:

Heres the intro paragraph:
For 70 years, the United States convinced much of the world that there was an international conspiracy out there. An International Communist Conspiracy, seeking no less than control over the entire planet, for purposes which had no socially redeeming values. And the world was made to believe that it somehow needed the United States to save it from communist darkness. “Just buy our weapons,” said Washington, “let our military and our corporations roam freely across your land, and give us veto power over whom your leaders will be, and we’ll protect you.”
The USSR, the Warsaw Pact, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, China (need I go on) are all just figments of our imaginations...

Its disturbing that anyone who has come through our education system could believe this twaddle, as OHenry has and does, but there you go. Following Blums logic, every single military event impacting a Government (outside the communist bloc) over the history of the USSR (interesting that Blum considers that time period to be the most important) was caused by the hidden hand of the CIA and/or Pentagon.

On a side note, why do American and Brit communists always seem to have silly poofter last names? Is there some family element to their communism? Is communism genetic to a degree? Are they all descendant from the original colonists of Massachusetts? Just a few questions to ponder.

UPDATE: Famous moonbat lefties who like Blum's other book, Killing Hope:

"Far and away the best book on the topic."
Noam Chomsky

"I enjoyed it immensely."
Gore Vidal

"I bought several more copies to circulate to
friends with the hope of shedding new light
and understanding on their political outlooks."
Oliver Stone

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 3/28/2005 03:22:00 PM


Anonymous ZenTiger said...

On the dissecting leftism site is an interesting discussion on IQ being largely a heredity factor, as is political leanings. Your casual observation AL may actually be spot on.

However, in the P.C. age of All People are EQUAL, this debate is very hard to put into the public forum. Consider the taboo of discussing sex in the Victorian times (but evidently it wasn't banned at least) and you get an inkling of the problem.

3/28/2005 11:20:00 PM  
Anonymous ZenTiger said...

I went over to Rodney's site to catch up on the debate. Here's my small contribution:

I noticed a few posts ago, OHenry said: “And I had to laugh when the CIA world factbook was brought into the argument”

A few posts later, this from OHenry: “I think you may be brain damaged. You attacked the source, which is a typical leftie thing to do”

Gee OHenry, are you claiming you are brain damaged, or as a leftie you get special privileges?

I’ve done some reading myself (okay, mainly comics, but the odd history book too), and I’d have to agree with Looke that the Soviets were bent on world domination, and were not content to wait for the capitalist foundation to collapse into socialism and make its natural progression into communism.

I think its fair to say some of the middle eastern nations have long been expecting a jihad of some sort to trigger the overthrow of the Christian world, and any-one who believes China isn’t open to the possibility it will need to flex its growing muscles in the next 50 years or so to ensure self-preservation (a concept they will determine, not us) is obviously too busy trying to work out how to hamstring America.

These people want to ensure a bunch of tree-hugging, flower children with a vaccine containing Neville Chamberlain’s stem cells ARE standing at the White House with trousers down, bending over, complete with a laser targeting system activated on the posterior of hindsight.

Of course, history could prove me wrong, and it might turn out that (with the exception of Germany and lets not look back further than 10 years) America was the ONLY nation that wanted to reshape the world in its image. Not.

And of all the images out there, given that I can chose NOT to watch TV, the American system, comparitively speaking (and with the knowledge it continues to evolve) is not too shabby.

Sorry, what was your point again OHenry?

3/28/2005 11:26:00 PM  
Blogger PhilH said...

"The USSR, the Warsaw Pact, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, China (need I go on) are all just figments of our imaginations..."

No, but the extent of the "Red Threat" was exaggerated grotesquely, particularly in the 80s when Soviet Russia was already on its knees.

You really should read up on the roots of neo-conservatism.

3/29/2005 11:34:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

I disagree.

In the late 70's the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the US was under pressure in Latin America pressure from the Cubans and various USSR/Cuba-supported communist groups, Britain was dealing with the IRA (trained by the KGB back then, was it not?), Germany, Japan, Spain etc were all being bombed by communist terrorist groups, violent communist demonstrations in South Korea were paid for by North Korea (against Park, who admittedly was a very nasty piece of work), various communist groups also at play in Africa and Asia, e.g. Thailand, Malaysia, Phillipines.....

On top of this, the USSR had made headway on the war technology front - the newly designed MiG 29 and Su 27 fighters evened the odds against NATO's latest; the SSGN Oscar-class subs were designed to neutralise American aircraft carriers, the USSR has manufactured large numbers of Backfire bombers to attack NATO convoys over the Atlantic, the Alpha and Akula ultra-fast attack subs could outrun NATO torpedos, the Russians had achieved a real 'Blue Water' surface Navy in only two decades...

The West thought it was up the proverbial creek, until Reagan came along and cranked up the military expenditure and proved to the Russians once and for all they couldn't compete with American economic muscle and technology.

If Reagan and the USA hadn't done that, would the Russian hardliners have been undermined? Would the USSR Communist Party have elected reformist Gorbachev as the General Secretary? I think not.

If Gorbachev and the reformers hadn't gained power, the USSR today could still be like North Korea or Cuba, but with a much larger nuke arsenal and the bombers and missiles to deliver them.

3/30/2005 12:06:00 AM  
Blogger PhilH said...

Well, you can swallow that whole if you want, but there is always propaganda on both sides of any conflict. To be blind to either is a folly.

The West set the ball rolling for many atrocities in the name of halting the Communist threat, by sponsoring bloody coups and installing dictators in countries such as Chile.

The Soviets responded in similar fashions, and as such both sides ruined many lives in the name of the dick-waving contest that was the Cold War.

I also do not think that your potential alternate course of events, where the USSR still exist, is all that different to the current world situation. The USA today are still fighting a war against a concept, only the old concept has been substituted for a new one. And both sides are still destroying lives in the name of another unwinnable war.

3/30/2005 01:02:00 AM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

It was a war and the Governments of western countries decided not to capitulate.

Please do not come on here and morally equate regimes which shot their own escaping citizens like dogs to our free democratic capitalist countries.

3/30/2005 01:40:00 AM  
Blogger PhilH said...

Well, yes, that's true. The USSR treated their own citizens like animals in many cases.

I was merely pointing out that Western countries must accept some reponsibility for the atrocities that they helped carry out on foreign soil.

We were lucky enough to be living free within our own countries, but that doesn't mean our Government's hands were clean elsewhere.

No country in the world is without a murky past, and so it would be silly to suggest that because we enjoy freedom, our Governments maintain a purely free system.

I recognise that very few things are either entirely good or entirely bad. Just because I point out bad things about something you think is good, it doesn't mean that I support the other side, or am morally bankrupt, or am a "Leftist", a "Hippy" or a "Commie". It just means I have a differing opinion to you.

3/30/2005 02:03:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home