Linux-Advocacy Digest #230, Volume #28 Fri, 4 Aug 00 19:13:07 EDT
Contents:
The Perestroika Deception. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Which distribution ("Philo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: The Perestroika Deception.
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 19:05:05 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> Irrelevant comment. Mr. Kulkis has never heard of working-poor
> >> people, it would seem.
> > I have been "the working poor" I financed my own education
> >with money I EARNED by WORKING. For several years, I lived on less
> >than $100/month discretionary spending INCLUDING school supplies
> >other than textbooks.
>
> And took practically forever, while those who accepted subsidies
> or loans sped past you. And subsidies include subsidies from one's parents.
>
> >> These are NOT 80% of the budget or anything close -- more like
> >> 5%.
> >LIAR. So-called "entitlement" programs are 80% of the budget.
>
> So you do claim that your elderly relatives are parasites?
In the context of how Social Security is set up, yes.
>
> >> I'm surprised that Mr. Kulkis has not tried to convince his elderly
> >> relatives to cure their parasitism by consulting Dr. Kevorkian.
> >It would be much better to just kill social security right now, and
> >let families take care of their elderly relatives directly.
>
> However, SS has been remarkably efficient at improving the
> standard of living of the elderly. They had once been one of the poorest
> groups, now they are often upper-middle-class.
Only because the current ratio is 10 workers supporting each elderly
person. This won't last long.
>
> >> >> Operating systems like DOS punish people much harder for failure
> >> >> than those like Linux, and according to that argument, are therefore *good*.
> >Linux is a multi-user environment. Misbehaving processes which threaten
> >to take kill the entire community of processes are terminated on an
> >individual basis as a penalty for their attempts to commit crimes.
>
> However, by protecting other processes, the OS coddles the user
> by not hurting whatever other processes a user may have active.
And so, because ONE user's processes misbehave, ALL USERS should
suffer? Among some college sophomores, the biggest achievement they
can think of is how to crash the whole computer....basically, the
equivalent of pyromaniacs trying to figure out how to burn down a
concrete-construction apartment building.
>
> >> Imagine having a program crash without hurting anything else -- what
> >> pampering!
> >Do you consider yourself to be "pampered" when the police arrest
> >a serial killer who has been killing people in your neighborhood?
>
> By your arguments about government funding being pampering, one
> would have to come to that conclusion.
>
> >Notice not only does LOREN Communist Agitator PETRIC REFUSE to answer,
> >but attempts to dismiss the entire line of discussion every time
> >I point out an uncomfortable truth about such things as why
> >Government Officials should not be trusted....
>
> This from someone who think that it ought to be trusted with
> armed force.
The alternative is facing invasion by any number of nations that
recognize ZERO individual liberties. Of course, since Loren is
a recognize supporter of the abolishment of individual liberties,
you can see why he argues against the US's military any chance he
can get.
>
> >> Irrelevant and beside the point. The Constitution nowhere
> >> specifies a minimum level of spending. And guess where the money to
> >> finance it is to come from?
> >It specifies that Congress shall raise an Army, and that the army
> >shall protect the borders of the United States.
>
> It also specifies a Navy, but no Air Force.
The Air Force draws it's lineage from the Army, and thus, legally
falls under the same Constitutional rules which govern the Army.
>
> >> >Let's take.....blue-blood Republican Jay Rockefeller, for example.
> >> >He's living off of grandpa's money. He makes..what..$70,000/year
> >> >as a Senator (give or take a few)...that is his taxable income.
> >> Accusations normally called "class envy".
> >Did I complaing about him being "upper class"... Noooooooooo
>
> Mr. Kulkis's record speaks for itself here -- that he did.
Wrong. I complained that they are a bunch of FREE-LOADERS...just like
the welfare-whores that they are so fond of.
>
> >> Mr. Kulkis makes totally baseless claims of Red-under-the-bed
> >> conspiracies, with as much evidence as a certain Andrei Yanuarievich
> >> Vyshinsky had had that most of the early Bolshevik leaders had formed a
> >> conspiracy to assassinate several Communist Party leaders, including a
> >> certain Sergei Kirov, and, of course, Stalin himself. This Russian Ken
> >> Starr had only one bit of evidence: the "confessions" of his victims.
>
> >These various defectors ALL predicted, in the mid 1980's, to within
> >one YEAR of when the Soviet Union would pull out of Poland. Nobody
> >had even heard of Lech Walensa then.
>
> ROTFL. Lech Walesa had already been well-known by then.
These predictions were made over a DECADE before Walesa ever showed up.
>
> Also, are those predictions on record anywhere -- and on record
> being before 1989?
>
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue07/perestroika_01.htm
Excerpt:
This is Part One of an interview by William F. Jasper, Senior Editor of
The New American, with Christopher Story, editor of the London-based
_Soviet_Analyst_, an intelligence commentary, and editor of _The_
_Perestroika_Deception_ by Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector
and famous author of _New_Lies_for_Old_. The interview was conducted
on August 16 1995 in the Presidio, San Francisco, outside the
headquarters of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA.
Q. And the predictions [Golitsyn] made concerned very significant,
"earth-shattering" developments...
A. Golitsyn's main predictions included details of the forthcoming
false liberalization of the whole of Eastern Europe, followed by
similar developments in the Soviet Union. He predicted the removal of
the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, the restructuring (if not
abolition) of NATO. He even went so far as to specify that a "Break
with the Past"process would start in East Germany, with the opening
of its borders � as it turned out, to neighboring Communist countries.
That was quite remarkable: Golitsyn knew that the process would start
in East Germany; and it did.
Q. For 34 years, Golitsyn has remained in hiding. He has never been seen
in public; his whereabouts are a closely guarded secret. Meanwhile,
other
defectors are conducting national tours, appearing on television, or
writing in the press. I recently saw Yuri Svets on C-Span, hawking his
new book dealing with his KGB activities while stationed in Washington.
Is Golitsyn's secrecy a reflection of his prudence, or of paranoia?
[NOTE: 1995 - 34 = 1961. Is it not interesting that a man who defected
in 1961 is so able to predict events in the Soviet Union's sphere of
influence....]
A. Well, those who seek to discredit him routinely accuse him of
paranoia. That is, of course, a mistake. Golitsyn was condemned to
death in 1962, after Semichastniy, then head of the KGB, had formally
asked the Party for its approval that he should be liquidated. A
Soviet defector who I am advised is reliable, reported to me that he
had seen a book on display in the Lubyanka [KGB headquarters] in
Moscow, listing the names and details of Traitors to the Motherland,
complete with photographs. Golitsyn features in this book, which states
that those listed are to be reported or killed. Obviously, it is highly
significant that, unlike KGB officers who have become prominent in the
West such as the "two Olegs" � Oleg Gordievsky (who told Mrs. Thatcher
how wonderful Gorbachev was) and KGB General Oleg Kalugin � Golitsyn
remains under deep cover. It is significant that we don't know where
he is, and that I have never spoken to him (he corresponds with me
exclusively through intermediaries). If he can't present himself
openly, and cannot live a normal life, there must be a reason for it.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/perestroika_02.htm
Excertp:
Q. According to Anatoliy Golitsyn, "glasnost, " "perestroika," and the
reforms and upheavals we have been witnessing in the '[former" Soviet
Bloc represent controlled events which form part of a "Grand Strategy"
rehearsed and planned decades ago. Could you explain the meaning of
the phrase "strategic deception ?"
A. Golitsyn makes clear throughout The Perestroika Deception that the
personalities on the stage of the so-called "former" Soviet Union are
all secret members of the Communist Party, KGB officers, members of the
huge Komsomol network numbering over 50 million, or members of the
nomenklatura � or, at a lower level, druzhiny (vigilantes), who are
used for staged demonstrations, televised provocations, and street
events. As Golitsyn writes on page 19 of _The_Perestroika_Deception_:
Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to
"resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal
methods, evasions and subterfuge" to achieve their objectives.
This advice was given on the eve of his reintroduction of
limited capitalism in Russia, in his work _Left_Wing_Communism,_
_an_Infantile_Disorder_.
... Another speech of Lenin's ... in July 1921 is again highly relevant
to understanding "perestroika." "Our only strategy at present," wrote
Lenin, "is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable,
more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again
assemble the masses round you. When we have won over the masses by our
reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the
strictest sense of the word." |Emphasis in original.]
If you examine the backgrounds of prominent Russian figures, you will
find that they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol pedigrees.
Yet for some inexplicable reason, the Western media have accepted their
sudden, orchestrated, mass "conversion" to Western-style norms of
behavior, their endless talk of "democracy," and their acceptance of
"capitalism," as genuine. "Scratch these new, instant Soviet
"democrats,"
"anti-Communists," and "nationalists" who have sprouted out of nowhere,
and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents,"
Golitsyn writes on page 123 of his new book. In accepting at face value
the "transformation" of these Leninist revolutionary Communists into
"instant democrats," the West automatically accepts as genuine the false
"Break with the Past" � the single lie upon which the entire deception
is based.
In short, the "former" Soviet Union � and the East European countries
as well � are all run by people who are steeped in the dialectical
modus operandi of Lenin. Without exception, they are all active Leninist
revolutionaries, working collectively towards the establishment of a
world Communist government, which, by definition, will be a world
dictatorship.
It is difficult for the West to understand the Leninist Hegelian
dialectical method � the creation of competing or successive opposites
in order to achieve an intended outcome. Equally difficult for us to
comprehend is the fact that these Leninist revolutionaries plan their
strategies over decades and generations. This extraordinary behavior
is naturally alien to Western politicians, who can see no further than
the next election. Western politicians usually react to events. Leninist
revolutionaries create events, in order to control reactions to them and
manipulate their outcomes.
Before Gorbachev � acting on the instructions of the Leninist strategic
collective � embarked upon perestroika, he achieved a breakthrough by
convincing the former British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, that he
was someone she could do business with. This was done by personal
contact, and through the intermediation of a dispatched defector, Oleg
Gordievsky, his role being to reassure the British government that
Gorbachev was "genuine." in her book The Downing Street Years, Lady
Thatcher even admits that she mistook Gorbachev's style for the
substance. I explain this in my introduction to Golitsyn's new book:
"As he cast his spell [over Mrs. Thatcher], Gorbachev unlocked the
key to the control of the Western mind � and to the restructuring of
the entire world. The West followed Lady Thatcher's prompting,
mistaking the style for the substance. The disastrous consequences
of this millennial error are now crowding in upon Western
civilization, threatening its very survival."
The purpose of perestroika, culminating in the "Break with the Past,"
has been to convince the gullible West that Communism is dead, that
the Soviet Union has collapsed, and that we are friends, not enemies
anymore � a lie which was duly embedded in the Joint Declaration of
Twenty-Two States, signed by Western and Warsaw Pact leaders on
November 19, 1990. The Declaration asserted that the signatories
are "no longer adversaries," and represented the culmination of the
deception which had been managed for Western public consumption by
Gorbachev's close KGB associate, Georgi Arbatov. Since publishing
an article in the June 1988 issue of Kommunist, in which he said
that "the image of the enemy" was being eroded and was vanishing,
Arbatov had repeated this message at every opportunity. Of course,
as a trained Leninist revolutionary who followed Lenin's advice to
his associates to use language deceptively, Arbatov meant that the
enemy would continue to exist. It was only his image which was to
"vanish."
The trick worked. The West foolishly and recklessly ignored Arbatov's
repeated mention of the phrase "the image of the enemy," and jumped
to the hazardous and unwarranted conclusion that the enemy himself
was disappearing.
After the West had bought the discontinuity deception, it readily
accepted its corollary � namely, that a peaceful future for all
mankind could only be assured through open-ended "cooperation." But
in fact lasting "cooperation" with these Leninist revolutionaries
is impossible, since their purpose is to dominate, control, and
destroy us. The "cooperation" theme forms only one element of an
equation which can be summarized as "cooperation/blackmail." In
other words, the secret Leninist revolutionaries have told the West
to "cooperate � or else." The blackmail element of this evil
equation was made explicit by Gotbachev when he delivered his
sinister "end of the Cold War" speech at Fulton, Missouri, a
theatrical occasion at the location where Winston Churchill had
delivered his famous speech announcing that Stalin had imposed an
Iron Curtain across the center of Europe. Gorbachev's speech was
sinister because it contained a menu of "conditions" on the basis
of which the Soviet Union would be willing to "cooperate" with the
West, plus several more or less explicit threats of world war if
we failed to cooperate as instructed.
Of course, the Western media failed completely to understand the
significance of the speech � just as today it fails to alert us to the
war preparations the Russians are conducting in close collaboration
with the Communist Chinese; and just as it has failed to question
why, as a Reuters report noted on August 13, 1995, the "former
USSR" maintains "dozens of closed military cities." The fact is that
the West does not know what goes on in the dozens of closed secret
military and nuclear cities. The press should be asking how this
squares with the rhetoric that the "former" Soviet Union is no
longer an adversary or a threat.
Gorbachev's Fulton speech contained the directives of the secret
Leninist revolutionaries, with which the West was required to comply.
If the required cooperation did not materialize, then this "window
of opportunity" would close, and would not be likely to recur in
our lifetime � so that the consequences for humanity could be
grave in the extreme. The threatening tone was blatant, and the
West proceeded to comply.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue09/perestroika_03.htm
Excerpt:
Q. What does Golitsyn mean in _The_Perestroika_Deception_ by
his warning that the West may yet experience its bloody feasts?
A. The secret Leninist revolutionaries covet the mad objective
of world government. By definition, a world government must be
a world dictatorship, which will seek to maintain total control.
Its architects are seeking to eliminate all opposition to the
establishment of world government by enlisting, through deception,
the West's enthusiastic cooperation in its establishment.
Conceivably, they may not succeed, in which case there will be
bloodshed before the final purpose is achieved. But what is
certain is that, if it is ever achieved, maintenance of a global
dictatorship will prove an impossible task, even though access
to weaponry by the population will be precluded; and in order
to simplify this task the controllers may resort, as Stalin did,
to the wholesale liquidation of millions of people. The
Communists are responsible for perhaps 150-plus million deaths;
and it is this image they have sought to erase from the West's
consciousness with their talk of the elimination of the image
of the enemy. They need to erase this image precisely because
as long as it remains embedded in our memory, we will resist
their schemes, including their plans to establish global control.
Q. The West has been assured time and time again that the
Communist Party was suspended and has been greatly weakened in
the Soviet Union. Please comment on Golitsyn's explanation in The
Perestroika Deception that the reverse is the case.
A. At the 28th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
(CPSU) held in July 1990, Yeltsin and Gorbachev spelled out the
task the Party now faced: In brief, it was to subdivide itself
into factions spanning the entire political spectrum in order to
establish the conditions for "democratism" � fake democracy.
Yeltsin's own resignation from the Communist Party at the 28th Party
Congress in July 1990 coincided with the emergence of all those instant
Soviet "democrats," "anti-Communists," and "nationalists" mentioned by
Golitsyn in The Perestroika Deception. Communists were given the
freedom to adopt whatever deceptive political label they liked. Some
became Stalinists, others Social Democrats or Liberals. Some remained
Communists. Others moved incongruously to the right, or adopted a
nationalist stance. All these sudden political "changes of heart" were
fake. Their purpose: to create the apparatus needed in order to play
the game of "democratism" � an essential ingredient in the deception
campaign to persuade the West that "Communism is dead" and had been
succeeded by "democracy."
At the 28th Party Congress, Gorbachev also confirmed that the
Communist Party was to be splintered when he stated that we must now
prove in practice ... the idea of a broad coalition .... The Party must,
resolutely and without delay, restructure all its work and reorganize
all its structures on the basis of the new Statutes and the Congress'
Program Statement, so that under the new conditions, it can effectively
perform its role as the vanguard Party. We must do everything to firmly
establish in the CPSU the power of the Party masses based on all-
encompassing democracy, comradeship, openness, glashost and criticism
.... When there are various views and even platforms on a number of
questions of policy and practical activity, the majority must show
respect for the minority. We must study, learn and improve our [new]
culture. If we embark on this path, it will be easier to interact and
have contacts with other forces. The Central Committee and I as
General Secretary will do all we can to help the Republic Communist
Parties gain their new independent status as soon as possible � a
status that will lead not to a fragmentation of Communists and
nations, but to a new internationalist unity of the CPSU on a
common ideological political basis.
Gorbachev revealed that the CPSU was to be restructured from top to
bottom, enveloped in "democracy" � meaning that its new controlled
factions and platforms were to compete amongst each other, thereby
creating "democratism," the illusion of democracy � and that all
Communists must "study, learn and improve our culture," meaning the
new "culture" of democratism. As for the Republic Communist Parties
and the Soviet republics themselves, "independence," of course,
is false and strictly provisional, its purpose being, as Golitsyn
warned the CIA in the fall of 1990, to open up scope for
independent military action in the Republics. Hence the "post-
Gorbachev" repression (and in some cases, genocide) in Georgia,
Moldova, Tajikistan, Armenia, Nagorno-Karabach, and Ukraine.
After the "August coup," the Communist Party was "banned." The West
rejoiced (forgetting that the Chinese and Cuban Communist Parties,
for instance, remained in place), and jumped to the reckless
conclusion that Communism had collapsed. The assumption,
presumably, was that having been "banned," the Party could not be
"unbanned." But of course, it was only "banned" for cosmetic
purposes. Today, the existence of the CPSU is openly acknowledged
by Soviet/Russian and Western Communist sources.
[Except Loren Communist-Agitator Petrich]
Q. Most Western analysts pay close attention to the
personalities on the Soviet/Russian stage, seeking to analyze the
conflicting statements of the various characters. They attach
Western-style political labels to these actors � describing one
personality as "liberal," another as "further to the left," others
still as Communists, and others as "non"- or "anti-Communists."
>From what you have explained, isn't such analysts completely
futile, since none of these people are political powers in
their own right?
A. They are all servants of the revolution, and they cooperate
closely while appearing to differ. They are not independent
actors on the stage. To the extent that they may appear to differ
genuinely on ephemeral matters, their differences are always of
only passing significance; they have no possibility of ever
achieving power in this environment which is so completely
manipulated and controlled by the vast Communist Party network.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0945001088/qid%3D965430113/102-6210187-3890533
New Lies for Old : The Communist Strategy of Deception and
Disinformation
by Anatoliy Golitsyn
Our Price: $22.95
Availability: This title is currently on back order. We expect
to be able to ship it to you within 3-5 weeks.
Hardcover (December 1990) [<--- Note copyright date]
Gsg & Assoc; ISBN: 0945001088
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 190,677
Avg. Customer Review:
Number of Reviews: 1
All Customer Reviews
Avg. Customer Review:
Number of Reviews: 1
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other readers!
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Important book, June 9, 1999 [<--- Note review date]
Reviewer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from Arizona
Is KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn right? Do the communists
have a long range strategy to destroy the west, implemented
in the 1960 time frame and extending over 40 years? He makes
a strong case, based on his personal experience in the KGB
and the history of the USSR. Furthermore his predictions have
largely come true--if anything he was too conservative. At
any rate, if Golitsyn was right, the strategy ought to be
coming together real soon, the point of which is to isolate
and defeat America with a united communist front.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:05:27 -0500
I'd recommend mandrake7 simply because it works.
Plenty of features without a headache.
Most any Pentium1 or above should do...I'd advise to use plenty of RAM
my Pentium 150mhz with 96megs of RAM performs pretty well.
Most people would consider my machine pretty minimal nowdays.
Also, I'd allow at least 2gigs or more for installation.
I did a nearly full install and it was a bit over 1gig.
Over the next ten years if i'm real lucky i might learn 10% of it :)
Philo
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
